scholarly journals Topical issues of legal regulation of artificial intelligence in the implementation of state and municipal service in the Russian Federation

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 160-163
Author(s):  
Ivan N. Melnikov ◽  
Ivan A. Samakov

This paper discusses the current issues of legal regulation in the field of artificial intelligence in the state and municipal service in the Russian Federation in order to ensure and protect the rights and freedoms of man and citizen. The article highlights the current problems that arise in the implementation of certain state functions, such as – the work of state bodies with citizens' appeals and the lack of regulatory regulation of the use of artificial intelligence technology in this process, the use of which will contribute to meeting the deadlines for working with citizens' appeals, as well as increase the overall level of quality of interaction between citizens and public authorities. Specific measures are proposed for the development of legislation in order to introduce artificial intelligence in solving the problems facing the public authorities. The article formulates the main conclusion regarding the trend of using the artificial intelligence system in the issue under consideration.

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 29-34
Author(s):  
Pavel E. Spiridonov ◽  

The introduction of the terms “public power”, “public administration bodies” in official documents marked the beginning of the resumption of discussions on the peculiarities of legal relations that are included in the subject of the legal regulation of administrative law. The work attempts to analyze the terms “public authorities” and “public administration bodies”, their relationship with each other. In the Russian Federation, a specific system of government with decentralization elements has begun to take shape. Such a system includes, in addition to traditional state authorities, specially created state bodies that are entrusted with the functions of organization and coordination, public authorities in federal territories, state and non-state organizations that are delegated public power.


Author(s):  
Vladimir T. Kabyshev ◽  
◽  
Tamara V. Zametina ◽  
Elena V. Kombarova ◽  
◽  
...  

The problems of transparency as an economic, social, political and legal phenomenon attract the attention of scientists in various fields of liberal arts - economics, sociology, political science, and jurisprudence. In this article, the authors are primarily interested in legal and political aspects of this phenomenon, since the current Constitution of the country pays considerable attention to the issues of democratic organization of power and the institutions of participation of citizens in the management of state affairs. Describing the real state of transparency in the public authorities of the Republic of Crimea, both static (institutional, organizational) and dynamic (functional, procedural) aspects of this phenomenon are taken into account. The current Constitution of the Russian Federation 1993 does not have the concept of "transparency". The analysis of Russian legislation shows that the principle of transparency, even without being enshrined at the highest constitutional level, has been adequately reflected in federal laws and other regulations. Legislatively enshrined transparency, openness, publicity, accessibility of information together create a regime of transparency of the activities of the three branches of state and local government, ensure the access of citizens to information and determine the forms of interaction and cooperation of citizens and power institutions in this area. The authors emphasize that the principle of transparency plays an important role in the system of principles of the organization and functioning of the public authorities of the modern democratic state. Its further legislative development will promote the confidence of citizens in public authorities, establish the dialogue between the state and civil society, and strengthen anti-corruption measures. Legal regulation of openness, publicity, accessibility of information about the activities of public authorities is carried out within the framework of several legislative acts ("On the media," "On ensuring access to information on the activities of state and local governments" and others). It seems appropriate not only to generalize these norms but also to include other ones developing this institution within the framework of a single federal law on the transparency of state authorities in the Russian Federation. The authors believe that we need the measures to improve the effectiveness of the institu-tion of transparency, including, for example, the consolidation of criteria (indicators) of trans-parency of public authorities The study of the principle of transparency of public authorities in the Republic of Crimea shows that the new subjects of the Federation have created legal and organizational conditions for the implementation of the principle of transparency. Though, there are some problems including the lack of developed and accessible telecommunication infrastructure, the orienta-tion of the Crimean providers to Ukraine, formalism in the consideration of citizens' appeals, not always prompt and objective information about the activities of the authorities of the new subjects of the Russian Federation, the need to ensure information security, the development of cooperation between Crimean and foreign organizations in the field of information and communication technologies.


Author(s):  
Евгений Николаевич Зиньков

В настоящей статье рассматривается процедура правовой регламентации общественного контроля, который предоставляет возможность открыто и доступно осуществлять наблюдение за деятельностью органов государственной власти. В ст. 1 Конституции Российской Федерации отмечается, что Россия - правовое государство, следовательно, обеспечение и защита прав и свобод человека и гражданина является высшей ценностью. Сам общественный контроль, как правило, является отдельной частью и не входит в систему контрольной власти государства, он реализуется, прежде всего, путем самоорганизации граждан. На сегодняшний день в России существует множество нормативных документов, регламентирующих деятельность общественных объединений. В Российской Федерации лица, находящиеся в местах изоляции от общества (подозреваемые, обвиняемые и осужденные), обладают всем комплексом прав, что и другие граждане нашего государства, за исключением тех ограничений, которые были установлены приговором суда и федеральными законами. Ст. 32 Конституции РФ наделяет граждан правом участия в управлении некоторых государственных дел, что и позволяет общественности осуществлять контрольные функции. Однако далеко не все общественные объединения обладают полномочиями по детальному изучению той или иной сферы государственной деятельности, к примеру, средства массовой информации (далее - СМИ) имеют возможность лишь поверхностно осветить деятельность конкретного объекта внимания. Однако это тоже является неким способом общественного контроля, так как позволяет общественности получить определенную информацию об изучаемом феномене. This article discusses the procedure for legal regulation of public control, which provides an opportunity to openly and easily monitor the activities of public authorities. Article 1 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation States that Russia is a legal state, therefore, ensuring and protecting human and civil rights and freedoms is the highest value. Public control itself, as a rule, is a separate part and is not included in the system of control power of the state, it is implemented primarily by self-organization of citizens. Today, in Russia there are many regulatory documents regulating the activities of public associations. In the Russian Federation, persons who are in places of isolation from society (suspects, accused and convicted) have all the rights that other citizens of our state have, with the exception of those restrictions that were established by a court verdict and Federal laws. Article 32 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation grants citizens the right to participate in the management of certain state Affairs, which allows the public to exercise control functions. However, not all public associations have the authority to study a particular sphere of state activity in detail.for example, mass media (hereinafter referred to as mass media) can only cover the activities of a specific object of attention. At the same time, this is also a way of public control, since it allows the public to get certain information about the phenomenon being studied.


Banking law ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 26-32
Author(s):  
Ismail Sh. Ismailov ◽  

This research is devoted to the analysis of the status and directions of implementation of artificial intelligence technology into banking activities. Issues related to the engagement of technology directly in the provision of banking services and related activities of lending institutions are investigated, as well as legal issues connected with involvement of artificial intelligence in banking activities. The article was prepared under a survey carried out at the expense of a budget according to the state task for the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation.


2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (10) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Людмила Андриченко ◽  
Lyudmila Andrichyenko

The article analyzes the current state of Russian legislation and expanded organizational and legal mechanisms of adaptation and integration of migrants in the Russian Federation. The problems of the division of powers between the various territorial levels of the public authorities in the field of adaptation and integration. The problems of legal regulation of the process of adaptation and integration and on the basis of relevant experience of foreign countries are offered the direction of its development. There have peculiarities of adaptation and integration in a multi-ethnic composition of the population of the Russian state. It is concluded that the implementation of the integration is a challenge not only to the state. Its implementation should involve the media, cultural and scientific organizations, the economy, as well as organizations of migrants themselves. It recognizes the need for differentiated integration policy of the state in relation to various categories of migrants. It is emphasized that the most optimal model of interaction of migrants and the host population is the integration model. An important area of legislative regulation of the author considers the need for further clearer delineation of powers between the public authorities in the field of adaptation and integration of migrants.


2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 618-632
Author(s):  
A.S. Panchenko

Subject. The article addresses the public health in the Russian Federation and Israel. Objectives. The focus is on researching the state of public health in Russia and Israel, using the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) project methodology, identifying problem areas and searching for possible ways to improve the quality of health of the Russian population based on the experience of Israel. Methods. The study draws on the ideology of the GBD project, which is based on the Disability-Adjusted Life-Year (DALY) metric. Results. The paper reveals the main causes of DALY losses and important risk factors for cancer for Russia and Israel. The findings show that the total DALY losses for Russia exceed Israeli values. The same is true for cancer diseases. Conclusions. Activities in Israel aimed at improving the quality of public health, the effectiveness of which has been proven, can serve as practical recommendations for Russia. The method of analysis, using the ideology of the GBD project, can be used as a tool for quantitative and comparative assessment of the public health.


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.


2021 ◽  
pp. 55-62
Author(s):  
I. S. Polyakova

The objective of this research is to consider some controversial issues of the development of public-and-private partnership (and concession agreements as its most common form) in Russia. Some complaints made by Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Russian Federation to some infrastructure projects are reviewed. The author studied dynamics of private investments into infrastructure projects in the conditions of imperfect legal regulation. The assessment of the validity of the position of Federal Antimonopoly Service is given. It is predicted whether the legislative collisions will prevent the growth of private investments into infrastructure. Recommendations on the development of the mechanism of public-and-private partnership with the observance of antimonopoly regulation, as well as recommendation on the improvement of the legislation in this area are developed. The results of the research can be used by both private participants of public-and-private partnership and the federal, regional and municipal authorities, and also by legislators working on the improvement of the legislative regulation in this area.


2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ksenia Minakova

The article analyzes methods of ensuring the migrants rights by the public authorities of the Russian Federation, the individual elements of the migration policy of the Russian Federation relating to the activities of public authorities. It considers the activities in the field of protection of the migrants rights by such authorities as the Russian President's Office for Constitutional Rights of Citizens, the Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights, the Council for Interethnic Relations, General Directorate for Migration, Chief Directorate for Migration Issues of Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, their normative documents, that regulate their activities. It examines separately the activities of the RF Government in the field of protection of the migrants rights, as well as judicial authorities; it identifies the special role of the RF Constitutional Court in the field of ensuring the rights of migrants, refugees, the internally displaced and stateless persons. It underlines the role of authority bodies of the RF entities in ensuring the migrants rights in terms of Irkursk Oblast. The article offers to differentiate strictly the role of each authority body in the field of migrants rights protection, as well as to pay specific attention to regulation of activities of the FR entities authority bodies in this direction.


Author(s):  
Irina Damm ◽  
Aleksey Tarbagaev ◽  
Evgenii Akunchenko

A prohibition for persons holding government (municipal) positions, for government (municipal) employees, and some other employees of the public sphere who are public officials to receive remuneration (gifts) is aimed at preventing bribery (Art. 290, 291, 291.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), and could be viewed as a measure of anti-corruption criminological security. However, the existing collisions of civil, administrative and criminal law norms that regulate this prohibition lead to an ongoing discussion in research publications and complexities in practice. The goal of this research is to study the conditions and identify the problems of the legal regulation of receiving remuneration (gifts) in connection with the performance of official duties that prevent the implementation of anti-corruption criminological security. The authors use the legal theory of security measures to analyze the provisions of Clause 3, Part 1, Art. 575 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Clause 6, Part 1, Art. 17 of the Federal Law «About the Public Civil Service in the Russian Federation», examine the doctrinal approaches to defining the priority of enforcing the above-mentioned norms, study the significant features of the category «ordinary gift» and conduct its evaluation from the standpoint of differentiating between gifts and bribes, also in connection with the criteria of the insignificance of the corruption deed. The empirical basis of the study is the decisions of courts of general jurisdiction. The authors also used their experience of working in Commissions on the observance of professional behavior and the resolution of conflicts of interests at different levels. The conducted research allowed the authors to come to the following fundamental conclusions: 1) the special security rule under Clause 6, Part 1, Art. 17 of the Federal Law «About the Public Civil Service in the Russian Federation», which sets a full prohibition for government employees to receive remuneration (gifts) in connection with the performance of official duties, contradicts Clause 3, Part 1, Art. 575 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation (the existing legal-linguistic vagueness of categories in Art. 575 of the CC of the RF leads to problems in law enforcement and makes a negative impact on the anti-corruption mentality of people); 2) as the concepts «gift» and «bribe» do not logically intersect, the development of additional normative legal criteria for their delineation seems to be unpromising and will lead to a new wave of scholastic and practical disagreements; 3) the introduction of a uniform and blanket ban on receiving remuneration (gifts) in the public sphere by eliminating Clause 3, Part 1, Art. 575 of the CC of the RF seems to be an effective measure of preventing bribery, and its application is justified until Russian society develops sustainable anti-corruption mentality.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document