scholarly journals To the question of impositions of restrictions on budgetary (autonomous) institutions involved in procurement for the purpose of fulfilling the state (Municipal) assignment

2020 ◽  
pp. 14-23
Author(s):  
Kristina Fedoseeva
Keyword(s):  
Nongovernmental Organizations ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Social Order ◽  
The State ◽  
Municipal Services ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Special Contribution ◽  
Social Sphere ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

The subject of this research is the restrictions set by the introduced to the State Duma of the Russian Federation draft law on the budgetary (autonomous) institutions involved in procurement for the purpose of accomplishment of the state (municipal) assignment.  The goal consists in the analysis of such restrictions in the context of reform of budgetary (autonomous) institutions aimed at increasing their economic independence. The article provides scientific assessment of the legal opportunities of attracting contractors for governmental and nongovernmental organizations in the process of rendering state (municipal) services due to passing the Federal Law No. 189-FZ of July 13, 2020 “On the State (Municipal) Social Order for Rendering State (Municipal) Services in Social Sphere”. The author explores the question of organization of law enforcement in this area, namely use of the instrument for budget classification the Russian Federation and other methods of identification of procurement. The author’s special contribution lies in formulation of the general criteria that would allow the institutions to attract contractors for rendering services in order to fulfill state (municipal) assignment in case if the aforementioned draft law would not be adopted. The main conclusion of this work consists in the need for consubstantiation of normative regulation of the right to carry out procurement for the purpose of rendering state (municipal) services by both, governmental and nongovernmental organizations. This is substantiated by Implementation of budgetary (autonomous) institutions into the competitive market alongside other nongovernmental organizations, and imparting them with certain economic freedom as a result of the initiated reform.

THE VALUE OF LOVE IN THE SYSTEM OF FORMATION OF THE PROFESSIONAL MATURITY OF THE EDUCATOR

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (10(79)) ◽  
pp. 12-18
Author(s):  
G. Bubyreva
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
The State ◽  
Educational Process ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The Family ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right

The existing legislation determines the education as "an integral and focused process of teaching and upbringing, which represents a socially important value and shall be implemented so as to meet the interests of the individual, the family, the society and the state". However, even in this part, the meaning of the notion ‘socially significant benefit is not specified and allows for a wide range of interpretation [2]. Yet the more inconcrete is the answer to the question – "who and how should determine the interests of the individual, the family and even the state?" The national doctrine of education in the Russian Federation, which determined the goals of teaching and upbringing, the ways to attain them by means of the state policy regulating the field of education, the target achievements of the development of the educational system for the period up to 2025, approved by the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of October 4, 2000 #751, was abrogated by the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of March 29, 2014 #245 [7]. The new doctrine has not been developed so far. The RAE Academician A.B. Khutorsky believes that the absence of the national doctrine of education presents a threat to national security and a violation of the right of citizens to quality education. Accordingly, the teacher has to solve the problem of achieving the harmony of interests of the individual, the family, the society and the government on their own, which, however, judging by the officially published results, is the task that exceeds the abilities of the participants of the educational process.  The particular concern about the results of the patriotic upbringing served as a basis for the legislative initiative of the RF President V. V. Putin, who introduced the project of an amendment to the Law of RF "About Education of the Russian Federation" to the State Duma in 2020, regarding the quality of patriotic upbringing [3]. Patriotism, considered by the President of RF V. V. Putin as the only possible idea to unite the nation is "THE FEELING OF LOVE OF THE MOTHERLAND" and the readiness for every sacrifice and heroic deed for the sake of the interests of your Motherland. However, the practicing educators experience shortfalls in efficient methodologies of patriotic upbringing, which should let them bring up citizens, loving their Motherland more than themselves. The article is dedicated to solution to this problem based on the Value-sense paradigm of upbringing educational dynasty of the Kurbatovs [15].

Human Rights Activities as a Function of the Prosecutor’s Office

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 88-93
Author(s):  
K.N. Golikov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
The State ◽  
Main Function ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law

The subject of this article is the problems of the nature, essence and purpose of prosecutorial activity. The purpose of the article is to study and justify the role of the human rights function in prosecutorial activities in the concept of a modern legal state. At the heart of prosecutorial activity is the implementation of the main function of the Prosecutor’s office – its rights and freedoms, their protection. This means that any type (branch) of Prosecutor's supervision is permeated with human rights content in relation to a citizen, society, or the state. This is confirmed by the fact that the Federal law “On the Prosecutor's office of the Russian Federation” establishes an independent type of Prosecutor's supervision-supervision over the observance of human and civil rights and freedoms. It is argued that the legislation enshrines the human rights activities of the Prosecutor's office as its most important function. It is proposed to add this to the Law “On the Prosecutor's office of the Russian Federation”.

Public hearings as an institution of deliberative democracy in major Russian and American cities

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-83
Author(s):  
Andrey Fursov
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
The State ◽  
Legal Regulations ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Hearings ◽  
The Russian Federation

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.

Official discipline of civil servants: legal framework

2021 ◽  
pp. 434-442
Author(s):  
A.Ya. Petrov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Civil Service ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
The State ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Civil Servants ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Russian Federation

On the basis of the analysis of Art. 11 of the Labour Code of the Russian Federation, Federal Law of July 27, 2004 No. 79-FZ “On the State Civil Service of the Russian Federation” and judicial practice, topical legal issues of the official discipline of State civil servants are considered.

On the settlement of the grounds, conditions and procedure for the separation of a child from the family

2021 ◽  
pp. 148-161
Author(s):  
I.V. Ponkin
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
The State ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
The Family ◽  
The Russian Federation

Conclusion on the draft federal law № 986679-7 “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation”, introduced on July 10, 2020 to the State Duma of the Russian Federation by the Deputy of the State Duma P.V. Krasheninnikov and Senator of the Russian Federation A.A. Klishas.

scholarly journals Right to life and possible interference in its implementation: Constitutional and legal aspect

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 453-457
Author(s):  
Marina L. Voronkova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Death Penalty ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Aspect ◽  
The State ◽  
Human Embryos ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
The World ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

Introduction. The problems of realizing the right to life are relevant to varying degrees in all countries of the world. Their importance can hardly be overestimated, since the preservation of a full-fledged family, society and the state as a whole depends on their solution. The article examines the problems associated with abortion, surrogacy, the development of biotechnology, death penalty, and analyzes the legislative experience of various states and Russia in these areas. The purpose of the study is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the problems arising in connection with the realization of the right to life and its possible restrictions. In the course of studying the problems, both general scientific and special legal methods were used: historical and dialectical methods, methods of analysis and synthesis, as well as the comparative legal method. Theoretical analysis. Russia (RSFSR) was the first country in the world to legislate in 1920 to allow abortion. According to the author, artificial termination of pregnancy solely at the request of a woman (without taking into account medical and social factors) causes irreparable harm to society, especially given the difficult demographic situation in modern Russia. In addition, this does not correspond to the guiding thesis of responsibility to future generations, enshrined in the preamble to the Constitution of the Russian Federation. In the context of realizing the right to life, each state faces a problem related to death penalty. Can a state, where the right to life is guaranteed, take the life of criminals? Apparently, each state should decide this issue based on the extent to which a particular crime poses a threat to society, a threat to life and health of people. Results. In our opinion, in countries with liberal legislation in relation to abortion, such as Russia, it is necessary to prohibit abortion at the request of a woman, since in this case the woman’s desire violates the right to life of an unborn child. The state should protect the right to life from the moment of conception, not birth, but this is a long process that should lead to an extensive interpretation of Part 2 of Art. 17 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. In addition, Russia needs to pay attention to the legislative experience of Germany and France in relation to surrogacy. In these countries, the legislator has clearly substantiated why surrogacy is in fact a crime against the family. In these countries, surrogacy is criminalized. Also, with the development of biotechnology all over the world, the problems of IVF and cryopreservation of human embryos are acute. This problem can also be solved at the level of legislation by allowing IVF only to married couples (man and woman) who cannot give birth to a child, and by limiting the number of fertilized eggs to a minimum, so that later the issue of destroying unclaimed embryos is not resolved. In general, it seems that in a mature society that wants to develop and tries to prevent the destruction of its state, it is necessary to protect the right to life by all possible legislative methods.

scholarly journals The prosecutor’s office on the defense human and civil rights and freedoms in the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China

2021 ◽  
pp. 87-92
Author(s):  
T. I. Otcheskaya
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
The State ◽  
People’S Republic Of China ◽  
Labor Rights ◽  
People's Republic Of China ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

The article is devoted to topical issues of protection of human and civil rights and freedoms by an important state body — the prosecutor’s offi ce in two states — the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China. The author investigated the issue of the formation of prosecutorial supervision in the European space in the mechanism of statehood on the example of the Russian Federation and in the Asian space on the example of the People’s Republic of China.At the same time, the approaches of the two states to the protection of human rights at the constitutional level, which are regulated by the Constitution of the PRC and the Constitution of the Russian Federation, have been studied. The achievements of the Russian prosecutor’s offi ce in protecting human and civil rights and freedoms, which are the responsibility of the state, including on issues of observance of the labor rights of citizens, the right of citizens to protect life and health, are consecrated.The state program of action in the fi eld of human rights adopted by the State Council of the People’s Republic of China has also been studied in detail. Achievements in the social sphere are shown, which are provided not only by the state, but also by the prosecutor’s offi ce. The approaches of legal science in the two states are consecrated not only in the regulation of human and civil rights and freedoms, but also in their provision.Based on the material studied, the author concluded that it is possible to use the positive experience of Russia and China, mutually in both states, in order to ensure the protection of human and civil rights and freedoms in each of them.

scholarly journals Sovereignty in a Federal State: Theoretical and Legal Bases and Practice of Implementation in Russia

2020 ◽  
pp. 13-26
Author(s):  
Andrei V. Bezrukov ◽  
Andrey A. Kondrashev
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Fundamental Principle ◽  
The State ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Potential Threat ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

The article raises the issue of state sovereignty in a federal state and reveals its legal nature. The authors draw attention to the diversity of approaches to the concept and essence of sovereignty, reveal its correlation with related categories, describe the concepts of unity and divisibility of state sovereignty. The paper proves that sovereignty is not a quantitative, but a qualitative characteristic of a state, which is either present or not. The authors substantiate the exclusive possession of state sovereignty by the Russian Federation. Based on the analysis of the doctrinal, regulatory sources and the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the authors show that the Russian constitutional model explicitly outlines the principle of solid and indivisible state sovereignty spreading throughout the whole territory of the Russian Federation. Recognition of the principle of state sovereignty of Russia presupposes a clear definition of the scope of rights that the Federation should possess in order for its sovereignty to be ensured. The article examines the main features of the state sovereignty of Russia enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, among which are the supremacy of federal law over the law of the subjects of the Federation, the inviolability of borders and territorial integrity, the unity of the economic space, fiscal, banking and monetary systems, common army (Armed Forces), the right of the state to protect its sovereignty and rights of citizens. Despite the unequivocal decision on the integrity of state sovereignty of the Russian Federation expressed the Constitution of the Russian Federation and by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, this fundamental principle is not completely ensured since the idea of the sovereignty of the republics as components of Russia continues to retain its potential threat to Russian federalism, taking into account the provisions of Art. 73 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation that provide for the full state power of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation

scholarly journals State council in the light of the 2020 constitutional reforms

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 52-55
Author(s):  
P. R. Magomedova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
The State ◽  
State Council ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Public Power ◽  
Advisory Body ◽  
Constitutional Reforms ◽  
Presidential Decree ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article analyzes the prerequisites for changing the legal status of the State Council of the Russian Federation, analyzes the Federal Law "On the State Council of the Russian Federation" dated December 8, 2020 No. 394-FZ and studies the changes that came into force in the light of the constitutional reforms of 2020. According to this Law, the State Council of the Russian Federation should become a real mechanism of public power in Russia, while remaining an advisory body and a platform for coordinating the interests of the regions and the center. The author conducted a comparative analysis of the State Council, which acted in accordance with the Presidential Decree of 2000, and the law adopted in 2020. Based on the conducted research, the author concludes that the amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation adopted in 2020 are timely and necessary in order to restore the existing government.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document