The article examines the implementation of the “regulatory guillotine” reform as a method of state deregulation, reduction of administrative barriers to economic activity, elimination of excessive and outdated mandatory requirements that can cause corruption risks in the interaction of regulatory authorities and business. The main aim of the study is to assess the system of state deregulation measures implemented in certain areas within the framework of the regulatory guillotine, including the development of new structures of state regulation in certain areas and types of state control (supervision), the development of new mandatory requirements in terms of ensuring the connection of mandatory requirements with potential risks of harm, damage, protected values and sources of risk. The article also aims to identify the main risks of implementing the reform. The source of empirical data was Federal Laws No. 247-FZ and 248-FZ adopted on July 31, 2020, drafts of normative legal acts containing mandatory requirements, drafts of new regulatory structures in certain areas developed by regulatory agencies and control and supervisory bodies, methodological materials, positions of scholars and economists on the prospects for the reform, foreign experience of deregulation and implementation of the regulatory guillotine in particular. The article presents the countries’ experience of implementing the regulatory guillotine (South Korea, Croatia, Kenya, and some deregulation initiatives in the USA) in order to analyze the possibility of its application in domestic practice. Based on the research, a number of conclusions are made about the implementation of the reform in terms of deregulation, institutional measures to combat corruption, the “bottlenecks” of the implementation of the reform, the risks of not achieving the goals, and possible ways to minimize them.
The article is devoted to a particular form of freedom of assembly — the right to counter-demonstrate. The author underlines the value of this right as an element of democratic society, but also acknowledges the risk of violent actions among participants of opposing demonstrations. Due to this risk, the government may adopt adequate measures restricting the right to counter-demonstrate, certain types of which are analyzed in this paper.
Development of standards of international controllability is reviewed in the article. Institutional approach is applied to development of international legal regime of Energy Charter. Definition of controllability is connected to development of international standards of dispute settlement, which are described in the article in detail. In connection with controllability, Russian interest, defense of investment in European Union and ecological investment encouragement, is reviewed in the article.
мировое управление и управляемость, Мировая экономика, международное экономическое право, энергетическая хартия, International control and controllability, International economics, international economic law, Energy Charter
международное частное право; недвижимость; ; школа бартолистов; бартолисты; теория статутов; статуарная теория/