Abstract: The subject of this research is the conflictual social relations in the area of administration of justice, as well as the concept and signs of procedural misconduct. Analysis is conducted on the general signs of offense applicable to procedural misconduct. The author reveals the peculiarities of manifestation of signs of offense: wrongdoing, unlawfulness, fault, penalty. It is noted that public danger is characteristic to any offense, thus is attributed as a sign of procedural misconduct. The author underlines that there are no precise wording in the legislation, which does not allow carrying out accurate qualification of procedural offenses (for example, the term “contempt of court”). The conclusion is formulated that the procedural offense is a socially dangerous, faulty, and unlawful act, the commission of which implies procedural liability. It is substantiated that procedural misconduct has most universal (common to all types of offenses) signs. At the same time, the aforementioned signs are often difficult to determine, since the wording of the legislator is quite vague. The author recommends to include into the legislation the definition of procedural misconduct and its varieties, which would allow clearly differentiating the procedural misconduct from all other types of offences.

DOI: 10.7256/2306-9945.2021.3.36889

Abstract: The subject of this research is the views of the scholars on classification of administrative responsibility functions and substantiation of the existence and implementation of its educational function. The research methodology employs formal legal and dialectical methods. The authors examine various classifications of the functions of administrative responsibility, analyze the role of educational function therein, and trace its correlation with the general legal functions. It is indicated that namely the educational function does not receive due attention in modern research, and its potential is underestimated. It is proven that the absence of legislative consolidation of educational purpose in the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses is not the reason to deny the educational function of administrative responsibility. The conclusion is made that the achievement of educational goal of the administrative function of administrative responsibility is the result of a comprehensive impact of the broadest range of legal, political, economic, moral-ethical, and other means. Thorough legislative mediation of the measures of administrative responsibility, their effective application, all-round encouragement of active lawful conduct, timely informing legal entities about the capacity of administrative responsibility, and consequences of implementation of its measures, ultimately realigns legal consciousness and “removes” unlawful attitudes. The article substantiates that law-abidance is the initial goal of educational function of administrative responsibility. Legal-abidance is formed not only due to realization of the capacity of law in regulating social relations, but also the concern to suffer deprivations as a result of implementation of administrative responsibility.

DOI: 10.7256/2306-9945.2021.1.35424

Abstract: The object of this research is the legal liability relations aimed at countering current threat to national security in form of coronavirus infection. The authors review the amendments introduced to the legislation on administrative offenses and criminal legislation, which establish liability in the area of ensuring sanitary and epidemiological wellbeing of the population. Emphasis is placed on the fact that it resulted in a number of legal conflicts that have not been overcome through the ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and require legislative resolution. The article examines the practice of implementation of administrative enforcement measures in countering coronavirus infection, as well as the resulting competition for administrative, preventive, procedural, liability and protection measures. It is indicated that the high dynamics of threats to national security justifies the need for the development and legislative consolidation of the effective mechanism that would ensure national security. In this mechanism, a significant role is played by legal liability capacity, primarily such public law types as administrative and criminal liability. The research reveals that the rapid response of the legislator to the threat to national security in form of a novel coronavirus infection via reforming the institutions of administrative and criminal liability generated certain conflicts. They have not been resolved through the ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and require additional legislative attention. The authors substantiate that by acknowledging the role and importance of administrative and criminal liability within the mechanism of ensuring national security, it should be taken into account that they are means of post-unlawful response of the government. Therefore, it is necessary to enhance the measures aimed at preventing and countering threats to national security, including those caused by coronavirus pandemic.

DOI: 10.25136/2409-7136.2019.10.31088

Abstract: The object of the research is procedural responsibility relations and the subject of the research is sub-institutions and different kinds of functional relations inside and outside them. The researchers analyse sub-institutios of criminal procedure, administrative procedure and civil procedure responsibility and describes different kinds of their relations. They focus on the development of the institutions of procedural responsibility and their isolation from material branches of law. The authors describe different kinds of interaction between structural elements of procedural responsibility and disclose genetic, coordination and subordinate relations. The methodology of the research is based on historical law, formal law and dialectical analysis methods. The authors have also applied such methods as deduction and induction, analysis and synthesis. The novelty of the research is caused by the fact that the authors explain the grounds for creation of the institution of procedural responsibility and describe particular manifestations of subordinate and coordination relations. They prove the existence of close and distant genetic relations as well as direct and derivative relations that may be of both internal and external nature. The authors discover that genetic relations that demonstrate the proximity and origin of the institution of procedural responsibility are conditioned by specialization of law branches as well as sub-institutions of procedural responsibility. They prove that coordination links ensure horizontal coordination and may affect, firstly, the order of bringing to different kinds of legal responsibility and secondly, application of other kinds of legal responsibility besides procedural responsibility; thirdly, the use of terms, definitions, measures typical for different kinds of legal responsibility, and fourthly, regulation of homogenous social relations.

DOI: 10.7256/2454-0706.2019.9.30581

Abstract: The object of this research is the system of law and its subsystem – the institution of legal responsibility in their interconnection and correlation. The subject of this research is the problems of differentiation of legal norms in sectoral and sectoral institutions of legal responsibility on micro and macro levels; scientific outlooks on the system of law and the system of legal responsibility. Analysis is conducted on the most controversial issues of the structure of the legal system and bases of its division. The authors substantiate the unacceptability of arbitrary based solely on subjectivism of the legislator, determine the new branches of law, as well as integrated branches. At the same time. The existence of cross-sectoral institutions that are on the same level with the sectoral division of the system of law is recognized. Leaning on the theoretical positions on the system of law, research is conducted on the structure of the institution of legal responsibility; the theses are offered on political structuredness of this system, as well as presence of interconnections with various levels and elements of the system of law. Conclusions are made on the dependence between the elements of the system of law and the elements of the system of legal responsibility, which are not simultaneously of absolute nature. The presence of sectoral structure of the system of law does not always presuppose existence of sectoral institution of legal responsibility, same as the separation of the system of law onto private and public does not signify existence of private legal responsibility. The authors substantiate the unacceptability of the arbitrary selection of sectoral and cross-sectoral institutions of legal responsibility based solely on subjectivism of the legislator and declarativity of prescriptions.

DOI: 10.7256/2454-0706.2019.9.43260

DOI: 10.25136/2409-7543.2019.4.30451

Abstract: The object of this research is a set of legal relations ensuring legal security overall, and national legal security in particular. The subject of this research is the norms of labor and service legislation that establish the fundamental values of legal security in this area; scientific views on the national and legal security; as well as different viewpoints of scholars on the concept of legal security. The authors infer that legal security and legal security as an element of national security are not identical. The author determines the attributes of legal security as a part of national security, including in the sphere of labor relations. The scientific novelty consists in the conclusions on the scope and content of the concepts “legal security as an element of national security” and “legal security in the area of labor relations”; as well as in determination of the levels and vectors of ensuring legal security as a part of national security in the area of labor relations.

DOI: 10.7256/2454-0668.2019.4.30489

Abstract: The object of this research is the social relations characterizes by the elevated corruption risks. The subject of this research is the system of views on the concept of “risk” developed within the Russian and foreign science, as well as the legal norms aimed at minimization of legal risks or generating such. The author explores the corruption risks substantiated by ambiguity and gaps in the current legislation. The reference point of this research becomes the definition of risk developed in the economic theory, the attributes of which, if adapted, can be applied in legal science. The article analyzes the definition of risk developed in foreign literature, as well as the world practices on minimization of the corruption risks. It is established that legal science, in the area of reducing corruption risks, does not carry interdisciplinary character, which is caused particularly by the absence of full-fledged institution of civil liability of private and legal entities for corruption offences. The author determines that the national legislation does not fully implement civil forfeiture for corruption offences, which in turn, is widely used in the countries with low level of corruption. The study reveals the dependence of stability of national security on the number of corruption risks in the legal or other spheres.

DOI: 10.25136/2409-7802.2019.4.30686

Abstract: The object of this research is the social relations regulated and protected by the norms of financial legal responsibility. The subject of this research is the norms of the institution of financial legal responsibility, their functional, genetic, coordination and subordination links; as well as system of the existing scientific views on the institution of financial legal responsibility. The author explores the general features and characteristics of cross-sectoral institution of legal responsibility; substantiates its subject, method and polystructuredness. Based in the general attributes of the institute of legal responsibility, the author determines the characteristics of the institute of financial legal responsibility; analyzes its complex structure comprised of a number of subinstitutions. Various sectoral (internal) and external links of the institution of financial legal responsibility namely with other legal institutions and branches of law are determined. The scientific novelty consists in establishing the presence of two relatively independent legal formations within the national system of law: firstly, sectoral institution of financial legal responsibility; and secondly, cross-sectoral institution of financial legal responsibility. Besides sectoral characteristics of the institution of financial legal responsibility, the author determines cross-sectoral characteristics of the second normative institution. The existence of cross-sectoral institution of financial legal responsibility is substantiated by the presence of certain “points of intersection” within the subject of legal regulation, as well as the general principles, objectives, definitive norms along with coordination, subordination and genetic links. The existence of both, sectoral and cross-sectoral institution of financial legal responsibility is also predetermined by polystructuredness of the system of law itself.

DOI: 10.25136/2409-7136.2017.12.23802

Abstract: The object of the research involves general and distinctive characteristics, interactions, quantitative and qualitative disparities, mutual transitions, unity and opposites of alternative and non-alternative sanctions, that is, those signs that allow us to assert legal categories as paired. The research starts with analysis of using paired categories in legal science and the definition of the algorithm itself for investigating alternative and non-alternative sanctions as paired legal categories. The authors determine the general features characteristic of alternative and non-alternative sanctions, analyze their differences and interactions. Special attention is paid to derivatives from alternative and non-alternative sanctions to paired legal categories. The characteristics of the contradiction and unity of alternative and non-alternative sanctions are revealed. Alternative sanction is also seen as a microsystem containing several types of legal penalties that are interrelated with a higher order system. The methodological basis of the work is the dialectical-materialistic method combined with general research methods such as system-structural analysis and synthesis, and specific research method such as formal-legal analysis. As a result of the research, conclusions were drawn about the properties of unity and opposites, mutual transitions and provision, interaction, qualitative and quantitative disparity of alternative and non-alternative sanctions as well as the existence of interrelationships with higher-level categories. Some legal and technical methods used in constructing alternative and non-alternative sanctions have been identified. The authors suggest that we should use the term 'means of legal pressure' to describe both rewarding and punitive sanctions.

DOI: 10.7256/2454-0706.2017.8.23838

Abstract: The subject of this research is the social relations established in the process of functioning of the mechanism of differentiation and individualization of positive legal responsibility. The author in examines differentiation as a principle of responsibility and a principle of legal policy that create grounds for implementing individualization of the legal responsibility. The author reviews various levels of differentiation of the positive legal responsibility, as well as gives particular attention to the operation of civil society institutions in the context of differentiation mechanism alongside the incentive sanctions and reward. The article analyzes the general, sectoral, and special legal statuses from the perspective of differentiation of the legal responsibility, as well as defines the impact of differentiation upon the formation of terms for individualization the positive legal responsibility. In addition, the author defines the role of the alternative sanctions within the examined mechanism. The research results demonstrate that the differentiation mechanism carries a multilevel character, as well as interrelated with the mechanism of legal regulation, legislative process, but is not reduced to them. The outcome of the mechanism of differentiation is manifested in the creation of conditions for individualization of legal responsibility, as well as the lawful behavior that is realized in general regulatory and relative legal relations. Conclusion is made on the number of elements of the mechanism of differentiation of positive legal responsibility.

DOI: 10.7256/2454-0706.2017.8.43094

DOI: 10.7256/2454-0595.2017.7.23734

Abstract: The research object is social relations in the sphere of formalization of alternative administrative sanctions; the research subject is the provisions, formalized in the Administrative Offences Code, and the decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. The authors analyze alternative sanctions in their interconnection with the principles of differentiation and individualization of administrative responsibility. The article studies the influence of decisions of the Constitutional Court on transformation of sanctions in the Administrative Offences Code and regulation of rules of imposition of administrative punishment. At the same time, the authors note the disputable nature of some legal positions of the Constitutional Court and the presence of provisions in the Administrative Offences Code, which breach constitutional rights and freedoms. The authors use the formal-legal, dialectical and comparative-legal methods. The authors compare the Administrative Offences Code with other regulatory instruments. The authors also apply philosophical laws of unity and struggle of opposites, negation of negation and transformation of quantity into quality. The authors conclude that, firstly, on the one hand, based on the decisions of the Constitutional Court, the legislator has introduced alternative sanctions to the Code and regulated the imposition of penalty in the form of a fine. On the other hand, the absence of clearness in the very decisions of the Court has allowed the legislator not to revise all the bulk of sanctions contained in the Code, providing alternative types of administrative punishment in the articles of the Code. Secondly, article 4.1.1 of the Code, providing for the substitution of administrative punishment in the form of a fine with a warning, contradicts constitutional provisions about the principle of equality of rights, since it contains the limited list of subjects, which includes small and medium enterprises and their employees, and discriminates physical persons. Probably, in the nearest future the provisions of this article will be considered by the Constitutional Court. Thirdly, the position of the Constitutional Court about the feasibility of significant rates of fines in the Administrative Offences Code, causes concerns, since the punitive impact of administrative responsibility becomes in such cases more severe that the punitive impact of criminal responsibility. It leads to blurring of distinction between criminal and administrative responsibility in terms of legal consequences for an individual. The existence of such sanctions and blurring of distinction between criminal and administrative responsibility contradict legal positions of the Constitutional Court about the necessity to differentiate legal responsibility, which should be not only sectoral, but also intersectoral.

DOI: 10.7256/2454-065X.2017.7.23784

Abstract: The object of the research is the public relations arising in the process of functioning of alternative and other sanctions in the mechanism of differentiation and individualization of financial and legal responsibility. The subject of the research is the norms of tax and budget law fixing sanctions for the appropriate types of offenses including alternative sanctions. The subject of the research also covers the decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the application of financial and legal sanctions. The authors of the article pay attention to the definitions of "financial and legal sanction", "alternative financial and legal sanction", mechanism of differentiation and individualization of financial and legal responsibility, its elements as well as their interrelation. The authors analyze the system of sanctions fixed in the Tax Code of the Russian Federation and Budget Code of the Russian Federation. Particular attention is paid to the decisions of the Constitutional Court on the implementation of financial and legal sanctions and their compliance with the principles of legal responsibility, and the Constitution of the Russian Federation standards. In the process of research the authors have used the formal legal method primarily as well as various ways of interpreting the norms of financial law. The comparative legal method was also used, which was expressed in comparing the provisions of various normative legal acts. The authors have used philosophical categories of general, special and particular nature. As a result of the research, a number of conclusions were drawn on the concept of differentiation between financial and legal responsibility, its multifunctional significance, the author's definition of the concept of "financial and legal sanction" was given, and recommendations aimed at improving tax legislation were developed. It is proved that the existing system of sanctions in the Tax Code contradicts the principles of legal responsibility in general, as well as the principles of individualization and differentiation of financial and legal responsibility in particular. The authors have substantiated the inconsistency of certain decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the system of financial and legal sanctions.

DOI: 10.7256/2454-0595.2017.4.22466

Abstract: The paper considers incentives for public servants and the legal provisions regulating the cases of their use. The authors consider different aspects of the concept of incentives for public servants, study the normative grounds for incentive measures, and focus on the most controversial issues of this legal institution. The authors substantiate the intersectoral nature of the institution of incentives for public servants. For the purposes of the research, the authors study not only the federal legislation, but also the statutory instruments of the territorial units of the Russian Federation. The authors apply the dialectical method of scientific cognition, the formal-legal and the comparative-legal methods. The authors also use analysis and synthesis, deduction and induction, and the philosophical principles of unity and struggle of opposites and transition of quantity into quality. 1. The institution of incentives for public servants can be considered in three aspects. Firstly, as an intersectoral and functional institution of stimulation of public servants. Secondly, as an incentive sanction provided by the norms of administrative or constitutional law. Thirdly, as a process of application of incentive measures to public servants, which is a form of the law enforcement process. 2. A sanction-incentive is a structural element of law, formalizing the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of the measures of positive legal responsibility, aimed at the implementation of the regulation contained in the disposition of a legal norm. 3. The institution of incentives for public servants is the set of legal norms (of constitutional and administrative law), regulating the procedure and the grounds for incentive measures for public servants, which is based on the incentive method of legal regulation, equal legal relations, coordination and subordination. 4. To use incentive measures for public servants, it is necessary to have factual and formal grounds. Formal grounds are formalized in federal laws, Presidential decrees, legislation of the units of the federation, subordinate legal acts, and local acts. 5. The factual reason for encouragement is lawful behavior of a public servant. Lawful behavior of a public servant is his/her deed (activity), which is in compliance with the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and legislation on public service, meeting the interests of the society and the state, and is realized by means of incentives and restrictions.

DOI: 10.7256/2454-065X.2017.3.22259

Abstract: The subject of the research is a tax offense and its classification. The authors focus on the most controversial problems of tax offenses: the specifics of wrongfulness; Guilt; Public danger. Particular attention is paid to the decisions made by courts of different authority levels on the issues of wrongfulness and the guilt of tax offenses. The authors proceed from the view that the punishability of tax offenses is expressed not only in fine, but also in penalties,despite the fact that the concept of penalty is considered in a completely different section of the Tax Code. Various criteria for classifying tax offenses are investigated. In the process of research, the authors used a formal legal method, a comparative legal, structural-legal methods. They also used such techniques as the method of ascension from concrete to abstract, induction and deduction. As a result of their research, the authors have made the following conclusions. 1. The legal definition of tax offense should be changed and the social threat should be mentioned in this definition. According to the authors, tax offence does harm not ony to economic relations but also to national security of the Russian Federation. 2. The legislator needs to review the system of punishments for tax offences and develop alternatives and relatively specific sanctions that would allow to individualize liability for tax offence. 3. Clause 1 of Article 114 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation should be read as follows: 'Tax offences are imposed and applied as money penalties (fines) and fees in the amounts set forth by Clauses 16 and 18 of the Code'. According to the author, mentioning fees as a payment for tax offences will rainforce taxpayer rights because it will be subject to the scheme applicable for tax offences. 4. Tax offences can be classified according to various criteria such as the object of tax offence, types of guilt, features of the tax offence subject, consequences of tax offences depending on specific features of component elements of tax offences.

DOI: 10.7256/2409-7136.2017.2.22105

Abstract: The research subject is the administrative punishment concept in its interconnection with the general theoretical concept of “legal punishment”. The “administrative punishment” concept is analyzed from the position of the theory of state and law, rather than from administrative and legal positions. The author notes not only the legal, but also the social character of the “punishment” category. Proceeding from the general to the particular, the author reveals the features of administrative punishment and compares them with the definitions, contained in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and with the repealed Administrative Offences Code of the Russian Federation. The author analyzes the rulings of the Constitutional Court and international statutory instruments. The author applies the historical-legal, formal-legal and comparative-legal research methods. The study is based on the dialectical method and the philosophical laws of transition from quantity to quality, unity and struggle of opposites, and negation of negation. The author formulates the features of administrative punishment, based not on the administrative approach, but on the methodology of the theory of state and law. The author substantiates the general theoretical, rather than the sectoral nature of the concept of “punishment”. The author offers amending the article 3.1 of the Administrative Offences Code of the Russian Federation. In the author’s opinion, it should read as follows: “Administrative punishment is the measure of administrative responsibility imposed by the government for an administrative offence; it serves for the penalty and the prevention of new offences as by the same offender, so by other persons, and for the restoration of social relations and the correction of offenders”.

DOI: 10.7256/2454-065X.2017.2.22116

Abstract: The subject of the research is the subjective aspect of tax offenses that are being investigated in relation to the general guilt theory and the subjective side of the offense. The authors analyzed the legislative definition of intent and negligence as they are defined in the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. The authors applied the comparative law method expressed in relation to the same categories laid down in the Criminal Code and the RF Code of Administrative Offences. Particular attention is paid to the implementation of illegality as a characteristic element of willful intent or negligence in the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. The authors eveal the inconsistency of judicial practice on features of a tax offense. In the course of their research the authors have used the following research methods: dialectical, technical, historical law, and comparative law methods. The authors used philosophical principles of unity and struggle of opposites and transition from quantitative to qualitative changes. As a result of their research, the authors made the following conclusions. It is necessary to change Article 111 of the Tax Code as follows: 'commitment of an act with tax offence attributes by a taxpayer, i.e. individual who could not understand the nature of his actions or control his actions as a result of a mental disorder or any other sick condition that makes his or her unable to perform his or her tax duty at the moment of act commission. The aforesaid conditions are proved by tax authorities by conducting audits, analyzing expert or witness evidence, demanding the production of documents, or by any other means'. The legislator needs to change the definition of the guilt taking into account the fact whether an act creates a threat to social security or not. According to the authors of the article, when defining the guilt in the tax law it is necessary to base on the psychological concept of built but not objective non-performance of duties. Social threat of deliberate and negligent tax offences cannot compare. Therefore, the legislator needs to differentiate liabilities for tax offenses and define liability for a tax offense as result of nigligence and liability for a deliberate tax offense. Amendments to the Tax Code should be of systemic nature.

DOI: 10.7256/2306-9945.2017.2.22440

Abstract: The research object covers the goals and functions of administrative punishments; the research subject is the range of administrative norms predetermining the functioning of the administrative punishments institution. Along with the functions, traditional for administrative punishments, which are the punitive and the preventive ones, the authors give special attention to the regulative and the reconstructive functions. The authors note the close connection between the goals and functions of administrative punishments and the tasks of the legislation on administrative offences, and study the peculiarities of realization of each of the functions of administrative punishment. Within particular functions, the authors outline sub-functions, which reflect particular aspects of realization of the particular function. The authors apply functional and teleological methods, and comparative-legal and formal-legal methods. The basic research method is the dialectical method. Some conclusions and provisions are based on the methods of deduction and induction, analysis and synthesis, and the philosophical principle of transition from quantity to quality and the unity and struggle of opposites. The authors come to the following conclusions: Administrative punishments have the following goals: regulation of social relations; punishing an administrative offender; prevention of administrative offences and crimes; restoration of social relations; correction of the offender. The authors formulate the new version of the article 1.2 of the Administrative Offences Code “Tasks of the legislation of the Russian Federation on administrative offences”: The tasks of the legislation on administrative offences include: protection of a personality, and human and civil rights and freedoms; protection of citizens’ health and sanitary and epidemiological welfare of the population; protection of public morality, environment, the established public order and public safety and property; protection of legal economic interests of persons and legal entities, the society and the state against administrative offences, and prevention of administrative offences”. Functions of administrative punishment are the directions of its impact on social relations and legal consciousness of subjects, which reveal its social purpose and achieve its goals. A regulative function of administrative punishment is the direction of administrative impact, which consists in ordering behavior of the subjects of administrative responsibility both prior to and after the administrative offence, and the use of measures of administrative punishment by authorized bodies. A preventive function of administrative punishment is a direction of legal impact, which consists in the prevention of an administrative offence or a crime described in the Criminal Code. A reconstructive function of administrative punishment is legal impact on the breached social relations for the purpose of their ordering, reconstruction, and restoration of social justice and order. A punitive function is the imposition of personal, property, organizational, psychological or other restrictions on the offender.

DOI: 10.7256/2454-0706.2015.5.14470

Abstract: This article is dedicated to the social bases of positive legal responsibility, without which building a legal state and forming a civil society is impossible. The author defends the legal nature of positive legal responsibility using the rich social and philosophical material. The author simultaneously conducts a polemic with scientists-sociologists and philosophers, who while devising the general concepts of social responsibility, do not take into consideration the specificity of legal responsibility. The subject of the research also includes various types of social norms, including juridical, which contain positive responsibility. The work presents results of polling. The article gives original definitions to social and legal responsibility, presents the polling data from different categories of citizens and experts (legal scholars) on the issues of positive legal responsibility and its regulatory impact. The author justifies a unified character of legal responsibility, which includes the positive (voluntary) and negative (state mandatory) forms of realization. The statutory (unified) responsibility is the responsibility (requirement) to uphold the legal rules by the parties of legal relations that is objectively justified, and set by the law, which if violated, forces the violator to suffer judgement, limitation of rights of property or personal non-property nature.

DOI: 10.7256/2454-0706.2015.5.42698

DOI: 10.7256/1339-3057.2015.3.16009

Abstract: The purpose of this work is to explore the social basis of positive legal responsibility and prove its legal nature and practical importance, as well as its connection with the rule-of-law state concept and civil society. To achieve this purpose the following methods were applied: dialectical, formal legal, sociological, and comparative legal studies. The application of a dialectical method enables to study the phenomenon comprehensively in its interconnection with practice and its development in social relations. The use of these methods has been tested by science and practice, which testifies to the efficiency of their application to legal research. The paper provides the author's definition of social and legal responsibility, offers the data of a survey on the question of positive legal responsibility and its regulatory impact. The author establishes the unified character of legal responsibility that includes a positive (voluntary) and negative (state-forced) forms of implementation. The study revealed that statutory (single) responsibility is an objectively determined, introduced by law and protected by the state duty (necessity) of legal relations participants to comply with statutory regulations, and, in case of violations, the obligation of the offender to suffer condemnation, restriction of property or personal non-property rights. Single responsibility is target objectively enshrined in the law, a reference point for proper behavior of legal subjects, and the criterion of its evaluation as responsible or irresponsible. This allows the subject that has not committed a legally significant act to know in advance about his or her responsibility, and allows the subject to focus on implementation of general legislative rules. If the subject complies by them, it means he or she acts legally responsibly, otherwise he or she acts irresponsibly. The consequences occur in compliance with the actions, which is consistent with the general principles of justice. The exclusion of responsibility that involves various forms of realization would mean the disappearance of the orienting goal, the criterion for evaluation of legally significant behavior as responsible or irresponsible. Responsibility as an integral legal phenomenon is in a static state: It is the basis, the reason, and the condition for appearance of the voluntary form of responsibility realization, as well as the criterion to define it as such. Without this condition, the appearance of the subsequent positive responsibility, which is a responsibility in a dynamic state, is not possible.

DOI: 10.7256/2409-7543.2015.3.15941

Abstract: The article examines social danger and its characteristics based on legislative definitions of an offence in different countries. It offers a comparative and legislative analysis of the concept of "offence" based on regulatory legal acts of different countries. The authors assert that all offences but not only crimes can be characterized as socially dangerous. A conclusion is made that a punishment which exceeds a criminal punishment can not be imposed if an offence does not involve social danger. To a certain extent we can judge about the nature and degree of social danger by the type of sanctions and the amount of adverse abridgment of rights that shall be imposed on the entity that has violated the legal norm.The purpose of this article is to corroborate the presence of the social danger characteristic not only in one type of offences – a crime, but also in different types of offences by using legislation of Russia and other countries. Methods of research. A dialectical approach was applied in the process of the research, based on which the phenomena and notions were defined in their integration and interconnection with social relations. The historical legal, formal legal, comparative legal methods were used.

DOI: 10.7256/2306-9945.2015.3.15975

Abstract: The subject of the research is the range of norms of administrative law which regulate the punitive, regulative, preventive and other spheres of action of administrative responsibility. The object of the research is the range of social relations in the sphere of administrative-legal regulation. The author substantiates the punitive, preventive, restorative and educational functions of administrative responsibility. He studies the structure of functions of legal responsibility in terms of its broad understanding, including the positive and negative aspects of realization. The paper notes the shortcomings of the Code of Administrative Offences and offers recommendations aimed at the enhancement of the existing legislation. The author uses the dialectical method, the comparative-legal method, the formal-legal method and the structural-functional analysis. The author comes to the following conclusions: 1. The Code of Administrative Offences if characterized by the “continuity” of the shortcomings of the expired Code of Administrative Offences of the RSFSR. It contains the doubling of compositions of tax offences and at the same time not all administrative offences have been included in the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation; the Code provides the following forms of administrative punishment: warning, administrative fine, confiscation of a crime instrument or a subject of administrative offence, deprivation of a special right, administrative arrest. Administrative banishment from the Russian Federation and onerous confiscation of a crime instrument in their legal nature are not the measures of administrative punishment. They are the measures of protection. Additional measures of protection are banishment from the Russian Federation, onerous confiscation of a crime instrument, applied simultaneously with the measures of administrative punishment, are aimed at strengthening of restorative effect of administrative responsibility if ordinary measures are not enough. 2. Liquidation of a legal person, suspension of a license, nullification of a license, prohibition of certain forms of activity are effective ways of private prevention of administrative offences since they exclude the subject from a definite sphere of social relations and deprive it of an actual and legal opportunity to commit a similar offence, but they should be contained in a single systematized normative-legal act – the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation, the more so because the legislator has chosen this way of administrative responsibility imposition. 3. Administrative disqualification, deprivation of a special right, suspension of a license, annulation of a license, confiscation of a crime instrument exclude an actual or legal opportunity to commit an administrative offence in definite spheres of social relations and thus further their normalization and restoration; the prevalence of fines in administrative sanctions indicates that the state considers a fine not only as the means of punishment and prevention but also as the means of budget replenishment and compensation of losses incurred by the state in the result of the committed crime. Each administrative offence damages not only the aggrieved party but the state in whole, and the fine is one of the ways of compensation of the damage.