scholarly journals Peculiarities of the Contemporary State Youth Policies in Russia and the United States: Comparative Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-199
Author(s):  
Alexey S. Butorov ◽  
Roman A. Adlov

This article examines the main causes and processes for the development of US public youth policy due to legal regulation of governmental and public institutions. The research identifies the main legal terms used by American and Russian legislators and the systems of youth policy, analyze the mechanisms of functioning of state and public institutions for working with youth. In addition, the study provides examples of the implementation of youth policy in the United States and the Russian Federation at the federal, regional and municipal (local) levels.

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-83
Author(s):  
Andrey Fursov

Currently, public hearings are one of the most widespread forms of deliberative municipal democracy in Russia. This high level of demand, combined with critique of legal regulations and the practices for bringing this system to reality – justified, in the meantime, by its development (for example, by the Agency for Strategic Initiatives and the Public Chambers of the Russian Federation) of proposals for the correction of corresponding elements of the legal code – make both the study of Russian experiences in this sphere and comparative studies of legal regulations and practical usage of public hearings in Russia and abroad extremely relevant. This article is an attempt to make a contribution to this field of scientific study. If the appearance of public hearings in Russia as an institution of Russian municipal law is connected with the passing of the Federal Law of 6 October 2003 No.131-FZ, “On the general organisational principles of local government in the Russian Federation,” then in the United States, this institution has existed since the beginning of the 20th century, with mass adoption beginning in the 1960s. In this time, the United States has accumulated significant practical experience in the use of public hearings and their legal formulation. Both countries are large federal states, with their own regional specifics and diversity, the presence of three levels of public authority and different principles of federalism, which cause differences in the legal regulation of municipal public hearings. For this reason, this article undertakes a comparative legal analysis of Russian and American experiences of legal regulation and practical use of public hearings, on the example of several major municipalities – the cities of Novosibirsk, Nizhny Novgorod, Voronezh and New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. A comparison of laws influencing the public hearing processes in these cities is advisable, given the colossal growth in the role of city centers in the industrial and post-industrial eras. Cities in particular are the primary centers for economic growth, the spread of innovations, progressive public policy and the living environment for the majority of both Russian and American citizens. The cities under research are one of the largest municipalities in the two countries by population, and on such a scale, the problem of involving residents in solving local issues is especially acute. In this context, improving traditional institutions of public participation is a timely challenge for the legislator, and the experiences of these cities are worth describing. The unique Russian context for legal regulations of public hearings involves the combination of overarching federal law and specific municipal decrees that regulate the hearing process. There are usually two municipal acts regulating public hearings on general issues of the city district (charter, budget, etc.) and separately on urban planning. In the United States, the primary regulation of public hearings is assigned to the state and municipality level, with a whole series of corresponding laws and statutes; meanwhile, methodological recommendations play a specific role in the organisation of hearings, which are issued by the state department of a given state. It is proposed that regulating the corresponding relationships at the federal subject level will permit a combination of the best practices of legal administration with local nuances, thereby reinforcing the guarantee of the realization of civil rights to self-government. There are other features in the process of organizing and conducting public hearings in the United States, which, as shown in the article, can be perceived by Russian lawmakers as well in order to create an updated construct of public discussions at the local level.


Author(s):  
Larisa Yur'evna Dobrynina ◽  
Anna Viktorovna Gubareva

The authors examine the economic sanctions introduced nu the U.S., EU and their allies against the Russian Federation, as well as the legal mechanism of retaliatory measures taken by Russia on the nationwide scale. The changes in the international legal regulation derailed the vector of global development, which was bringing real freedom of economic activity. Establishment of the sanction regime by the aforementioned parties signifies a struggle for own influence, weakening of the positive trade and economic ties, as well as an attempt to institute a regime of protectionism within the international trade turnover exclusively for their own benefit. Based on the analysis of the normative-legal documents, an assessment is made on the legal legitimacy of the introduced discriminatory measures of the allies from the perspective of the norms of international law. This article presents the analysis of the positions of federal laws and other legislative bills of the Russian Federation, establishing gradual constraining countermeasures for foreign subjects in various spheres of activity. The authors substantiate the fact that introduction of retaliatory economic sanctions by the Russian Federation with regards to the United States, European Union, and their allies is directly related to the implementation of the principle of reciprocity, currently existing within private international law. It is noted that all these actions on protection from illegitimate sanctions are realized by Russia practically without participation of UN, WTO and other reputable international organizations in regulation of the “sanctions” issue. The extraterritorial measures introduced by the United States and the European Union justifies the movement of Russian into a new stage of evolution of legal regulation of the foreign economic activity, and in foreign trade – establishment of new markets in Asia, Africa and Latin America.


Author(s):  
Игорь Ирхин ◽  
Igor Irkhin

This monograph comprehensively examines the constitutional and legal status of territories with a special status within the Federal States in the context of the Institute of territorial autonomy. The study is based on the experience of constitutional and legal regulation of the status of Autonomous districts in the "composite subjects" of the Russian Federation, administrative-territorial units with a special status in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, Autonomous districts in India, Nunavut territory in Canada, unincorporated territories of the United States This monograph is one of the first works in the domestic jurisprudence, in which the study was conducted from the perspective of territorial autonomy. The publication is intended for researchers, postgraduates and students, all readers interested in constitutional (public) law, theory of state and law.


Author(s):  
Marine Rezoevna Demetradze ◽  
Artem Buslaev

This article is dedicates to the relevant topic of using manipulative technique – the so-called political spectacle, which is implemented via the method of substituted governance/participation. The authors give a new perspective on the concept developed by the U.S. sociologists; introduce the category of dichotomy “governance/participation”; expose the essence of the revival of conservative sociocultural values. Comparative analysis is conducted on the political processes that take place in the United States and the Russian Federation. The article determines their common and specific features, which reveal the factors of accelerated modernization in the United States and factors that impede such processes in the Russian Federation. In conclusion, the author makes recommendations aimed at overcoming Russia's stagnation in this regard. The acquired materials are valuable for the experts in the field of international relations, political scientists, cultural anthropologists, sociologists, as well as anyone interested in improvement of Russia–United States relations. Multiple Russian and foreign research are dedicated to the revival of the traditional forms of governance in modern Russia, as well as in the entire post-Soviet space, which distorts the fundamental elements of democracy. However, this is the first research on examination of the traditional form of governance and its application to modern realities in the context of political spectacle, introduced into sociology by the American scientist Murray Edelman. An attempt was made to apply M. Edelman’s methodology in the conditions of Russian reality; carry out a comparative analysis of the  political processes, functionality of the  institutions, political culture of the Russian and American societies; and offer the ways of overcoming difficulties and issues related to transition of the modern Russian society to a higher level of modernization development.


POPULATION ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 76-86
Author(s):  
Alexey Smirnov

The coronavirus epidemic has had a significant impact on various aspects of socioeconomic relations in the Russian Federation. In the field of demography, the negative impact of the epidemic was twofold: the decline in fertility was accompanied by an increase in mortality. However, the real picture of mortality from COVID-19 is very difficult to draw. Different sources of 1information contain different numbers. The purpose of the study, based on a comparative analysis, is to determine the total mortality rate from coronavirus infection in Russia in 2020.To do this, it is necessary to compare the available data for individual constituent entities of the Russian Federation, as well as compare them with data from other countries similar to Russia in terms of the dynamics of the COVID-19 epidemic. As a result of a comparative analysis of regional data, as well as a comparison of Russian mortality rates with those of the United States and England, the article concludes that: data on mortality associated with COVID-19 differ significantly in different constituent entities of the Russian Federation, which at least indicates about significant and difficult to explain differences in the methodology used; the largest share of deaths associated with COVID-19 in excess mortality in December 2020 falls on Moscow, where it reaches 98.4%; mortality data in Moscow are close to similar data in the United States for December 2020; extrapolation of Moscow data for the whole of Russia and for the entire period of the epidemic makes it possible to estimate the total mortality associated with coronavirus infection in the Russian Federation, at the end of2020, at 337 thousand people, which is more than 6 times morethan according to the data of the Operational Headquarters.


2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 546-564
Author(s):  
Emil V. Alimov

This article is devoted to the analysis of the genomic research legal regulation in the Russian Federation and the USA. In the United States, in addition to the legislation great importance is attached to medical and scientific institutions self-regulation, and such information is usually open. It is concluded that in Russia, despite the presence of both state and non-state scientific institutions engaged in genomic research, the mechanism of self-regulation as a whole is fragmented. It is also noted that Russia and the United States have specific legal regulation of these relations, which is reflected in the text of the article. For example, in the United States, unlike Russia, most organizations conducting genomic research, including genomic testing, are non-governmental. Currently, the general trend in the legal regulation of genomic research in Russia and the USA is the active development of normative legal regulation. Moreover, a significant difference in the approaches of these countries is the active role of the US states in the development of regional legal regulation on these issues. Despite the fact that Russia is a federal state, the subjects of the Russian Federation are significantly limited in the genomic research legal regulation possibilities. This is largely due to both legal and political reasons that were given in this article. In the United States, a number of statutes have been adopted at the state level that regulate genomic research in such aspects as health insurance, confidential of personal information, the prohibition of discrimination, screening of newborns, and certain types of clinical and scientific research. It should be noted that the genomic research regulation in the United States is not integrated into a single national consolidated act, which is a feature of this legal system. A comparative legal study of the fundamentals of legal regulation and self-regulation of genomic research in Russia and the USA made it possible to understand the specifics of regulation of these issues in different legal systems. The positive regulatory experience in conducting genomic research in the United States can be used to improve the regulatory framework of the Russian Federation in this area.


Author(s):  
A. A. Klishas

Introduction. The article deals with the problems of sovereignty of modern states in the context of political confrontation at the beginning of the 21st century. The author performs a legal analysis of the issue of a state’s constitutional identity limitation by supranational interstate associations and the issue of inter-ference of some states in the affairs of others as a modern trend of interstate communication.Materials and methods. The theoretical basis of the research is the views of the German jurisprudent R. Jhering on the correlation of objective law and subjective law, as well as on the conditions that are necessary for the existence of the rule of law. The empirical basis of the research is represented by the current legal regulation of the Russian Federation and the United States of America, as well as by legislative initiatives being under consideration in the Congress of the United States of America. The methodological basis of the research is the formal logical method, the method of system analysis, structural and functional method.Results. On the basis of the analysis of modern trends in the interstate in-teraction and after consideration of individual domestic political decisions taken in the Russian Federation and the United States of America the author con-cludes, that the international cooperation is impossible without adopting sover-eignty ensuring government measures which measure up both to the violation of the state’s constitutional identity by interstate associations and to the interference of states into the internal affairs of others.Discussion and conclusion. Interference of interstate associations in a state’s constitutional identity and states’ consistent interference in the internal af-fairs of other states are an absolutely unacceptable practice from the standpoint of international law. Such a practice prevents the construction of international cooperation on the basis of consensus and mutual respect and brings to naught the effectiveness of interstate cooperation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document