Целью настоящего исследования является выявление причин, по которым делегаты IX-го Всероссийского съезда судей (декабрь 2016 г.) не продолжили линию развития отечественного правосудия, провозглашенную Постановлением VIII-го Всероссийского съезда судей № 1 от 19 декабря 2012 г. «О состоянии судебной системы Российской Федерации и основных направлениях ее развития». В ходе проведенного исследования автором были выявлены две основные причины произошедшего. В качестве одной из них называется отсутствие в России самостоятельного государственно-властного органа, разрабатывающего стратегию развития механизма судебной власти, обеспечивающего ее реализацию. Второй, более значимой причиной автор считает недостаточную научно-правовую проработку самого понятия справедливости в механизме правосудия. ; The purpose of this study is to identify the reasons why the delegates of the IX All-Russian Congress of Judges (December 2016) did not continue the line of development of the domestic justice proclaimed by the Decree of the previous congress (VIII All-Russian Congress of Judges no 1, December 19, 2012 – «On the State of the Judicial System of the Russian Federation and the Main Directions of Its Development»). At that time, the delegates of the congress noted, «the need to develop a state project of strategic reforms of the organizational and legal mechanism of domestic justice, whose ultimate goal would be to build a fair court that meets the aspirations of the Russian society, is becoming an ever more pressing need.» They also named the method for solving this problem. In the course of the study, the author has identified two main reasons for the highest body of the country's judicial community not to continue the line for strategic modernization of the justice mechanism and the development of the state fair trial project. Among such reasons, the author names the absence of a separate, independent state-power body in Russia, which would propose a strategy for the development of the judicial power mechanism to ensure its implementation and to be responsible for the case's success. Such an authority is not, nor can be, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the Judicial Department under the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, nor any other state body, or any body of the judicial community. Yet such state-power (and constitutional) bodies can be found worldwide, including the CIS member states. This is a reason of the organizational quality – simply for the absence of such named body, we have no one to act as a commissioner for the development of this state project. The second, a more significant reason, is of scientific and legal properties, which the author considers to be the insufficient scientific and legal research on the very concept of justice in the legal system. Aristotle singled out the problem of assessing judicial activity from the position of justice many years ago, and many scientists have turned to it since then. Yet nowadays judges are not guided by scientifically grounded signs of justice, but by their own intuition. The absence of a state power body personifying the judiciary in the country, as well as the inadequacy of the scientific and legal elaboration of the category of justice in the legal system, served as a basis for delegates of the IX All-Russian Congress of Judges to delicately bypass the decision of the delegates of the previous congress, who had considered it necessary to draft a state project for a fair Court. At the same time, it should be noted that objectively, by and large, the general situation in the mechanism of the domestic justice is clearly not so deplorable as the adherents of the Russia's flawedness argue; this mechanism is much better today than it was just ten years ago. Yet the general attitude of the Russian society to the mechanism of domestic justice is not as positive as it should be. Thus, the task set by the delegates of the VIII All-Russian Congress of Judges remains there. It will not resolve itself but it must be solved. In the opinion of the author, the problem is in the first place of scientific nature, rather than organizational, legislative, etc. Therefore, there is the need for the Program for the development of the State Project «Fair Trial», the draft itself is in its form close to the four-volume edition of the legislative acts, which completed the development of the documents for the Judicial Reform in Russia in 1864. Fundamentally, it is the nature of each of the three components of the justice mechanism – Judicial, arbitral and judicial-statutory – which needs to implement the appropriate clear benchmarks of justice.
The subject. The article is devoted to the investigation of the main direct object and the circle of victims are subjected of harm by criminal acts stipulated by pts. 1, 2 of art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.The purpose of the paper is to identify does the art. 294 of Criminal Code of the Russian Federation meets the other provisions of criminal procedure legislation.The methodology of research includes methods of complex analysis, synthesis, as well as formal-logical, comparative legal and formal-legal methods.Results and scope of application. The content of art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not comply with the provisions of the criminal procedure law. The discrep-ancy lies in terms of the range of participants in criminal proceedings and the functions performed by them, as well as the actual content and correlation of such stages of criminal proceedings as the initiation of criminal proceedings and preliminary investigation. In addi-tion, the current state of art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not take into account the ever-widening differentiation of criminal proceedings.The circle of victims listed in pt. 2 of art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation should be supplemented by such participants in the criminal process as a criminal investi-gator, the head of the investigative body, the head of the inquiry department, the head of the body of inquiry. At the same time, the author supports the position that the criminal-legal protection of the said persons should cover not only their activities at the stage of preliminary investigation, but also of the entire pre-trial proceedings as a whole.The circle of criminal acts provided for in art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Fed-eration, should also be specified with an indication of encroachment in the form of kidnapping, destruction or damage to such a crime as materials of criminal, civil and other cases, as well as material evidence.Conclusions. The content of art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not comply with the provisions of the criminal procedure law. The author formulates the conclusion that the circle of victims listed in pt. 2 of art. 294 of the Criminal Code should be broadened and joins the position that the criminal-legal protection of these persons should cover not only their activities at the stage of preliminary investigation, but also of the entire pre-trial proceedings as a whole. ; Исследуются основной непосредственный объект и круг лиц, которым может быть причинен вред преступными деяниями, предусмотренными ч. 1, 2 ст. 294 УК РФ. Де-лается вывод, что содержание ст. 294 УК РФ не соответствует положениям уголовно-процессуального законодательства, а круг потерпевших, перечисленных в ч. 2 ст. 294 УК РФ, должен быть расширен – тем самым подтверждается позиция, что уголовно-правовая охрана указанных лиц должна охватывать не только их деятельность на ста-дии предварительного расследования, но и всего досудебного производства в целом.
The article analyzes the features of the modern system of organization of state power. The author substantiates the position that the domestic model of the state and territorial structure and the system of organization of the supreme bodies of state power result from reflecting of certain features of the legal nature of the Russian state administration, which is characterized by a monocratic style. The essence of Russian monocracy is manifested in the concentration of competence in one center, the complexity of manifestation of opposition forces in the political and legal field, the dominance of executive and administrative authorities in the system of public administration, the lack of a mechanism for the implementation of legal responsibility, primarily constitutional and legal, for the results of its activities. The modern problems of the organization of higher bodies of state power, as well as the further development of the domestic model of federalism, including both the improvement of the state and territorial structure and the modernization of federal relations, require their scientific comprehension and identification of ways and their optimization, taking into account the prospects for the formation of a right-wing state in Russia.In this regard, it is concluded that there is a need for a constitutional limitation of Russian monocracy in state administration in order to avoid excessive authoritarianism and centrism in state administration, the creation of certain sorts of conditions and circumstances that hamper the further monocraticization of state administration that is enshrined in the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.DOI 10.14258/izvasu(2017)6-04 ; Анализируются особенности современной системы организации государственной власти.Обосновывается позиция, что отечественная модель государственно-территориального устройства и система организации высших органов государственной власти являются результатом отражения некоторых особенностей юридической природы российского государственного управления, для которого характерен монократический стиль. Сущность российского монократизма проявляется в концентрации компетенционных полномочий в одном центре, сложности проявления в политико-правовом поле оппозиционных сил, доминировании исполнительно-распорядительных органов власти в системе публичного управления, отсутствии механизма реализации юридической ответственности, прежде всего конституционно-правовой, за результаты своей деятельности.Современные проблемы организации высших органов государственной власти, а также вопросы дальнейшего развития отечественной модели федерализма, включая как совершенствование государственно-территориального устройства, так и модернизацию федеративных отношений, требуют научного осмысления и определения путей их оптимизации с учетом перспектив становления правового государства в России.В связи с этим делается вывод о необходимости конституционного ограничения российского монократизма в государственном управлении во избежание излишнего авторитаризма и центризма в государственном управлении, создания определенного рода условий и обстоятельств, препятствующих дальнейшей монократизации государственного управления, нашедшего закрепление в положениях Конституции Российской Федерации.DOI 10.14258/izvasu(2017)6-04
The article discusses the philosophical concept of restorative justice , which the 70- ies of XX century, defines the direction of the juvenile justice system in Russia and foreign countries. The authors represent the philosophical foundations of the concept of restorative justice, show their manifestation in the criminal legislation of the countries near and far abroad. ; В статье рассматривается философская концепция восстановительного правосудия, которая с 70-х годов XX века определяет направления развития ювенальной юстиции России и зарубежных странах. Авторы статьи излагают философские основания концепции восстановительного правосудия, показывают их проявления в уголовно-процессуальном законодательстве стран дальнего и ближнего зарубежья.
It is generally believed that the subject of any investigation should be a problem the solution of which removes an apparent or actual contradiction. But the very idea of social management as a mechanism for conflict cooperation involves solid contradictions and problems. Every solution generates new problems. With this approach, the subject of the public administration theory is scientific substantiation of the process of achieving the optimal government control by improving the organization of such activities. The author notes that, in addition to philosophical and ideological principles the methodology of administrative law includes general and special research methods that apply to other law sciences. Moreover, each science is to shape their own methodological basis relying on the general theory of knowledge. With regard for specific targets and objects of research, different sciences have a common goal - to provide society with new evidence-based structured knowledge. It is concluded that the integrated use of different methods and approaches contributes to the establishment and generalization of specific features of the legal institution and solving problems of its legal regulation at the federal and regional levels. ; Считается, что предметом любого исследования должна являться проблема, решение которой снимает кажущееся или действительное противоречие. Но в самой идее социального управления как механизме конфликтного сотрудничества заложены сплошные противоречия и проблемы. Решение одних порождает новые. При таком подходе предметом теории государственного администрирования является проблема научного обоснования процесса достижения оптимального государственного управления путем совершенствования организации такой деятельности. Обращаясь к заявленной проблематике, автор отмечает, что, кроме философской и мировоззренческой основы, методология административного права включает общие и частнонаучные методы исследования, что применимо и к другим юридическим наукам. При этом каждая наука призвана формировать свои методологические основы, опираясь на общую теорию познания; с учетом специфических целей и объекта исследования разные науки имеют общую цель - предоставление обществу нового системно выстроенного доказательного знания. В результате автор резюмирует, что комплексное применение различных методов и подходов способствует установлению и обобщению особенностей правового института, решению проблем его правового регулирования на общефедеральном и региональном уровнях.
