The article discusses the evolution of views on administrative responsibility and tendencies of development of this type of legal liability. In the Soviet and modern Russian law administrative liability has been considered as various legal phenomena - the administrative procedure of bringing to responsibility, responsibility for administrative offences and the overall legal responsibility for offences characterized by intrinsic differences. Thus, the administrative procedure of bringing to responsibility is characterized by sentencing in simplified procedures by an administrative body acting outside the field of judicial review, and as its purpose has the rapid enforcement of regulations of local and Central Government through punitive measures. The article notes that since the 60-ies of the XX century the law has provided for judicial appointment of individual punishment (corrective labour, administrative arrest, eviction in specially designated area, etc.), judicial control over the administrative authorities when inflicting a fine and has been determined by the features of guilt of a wrongful act as a basis for responsibility. By this, they limit the accountability of the administrative order, create conditions for the emergence of a new mechanism - the responsibility for administrative offences, which was finally formed with the systematization of legislation and the adoption of the Basis of Legislation of the USSR and the Union republics on Administrative Offences and the Administrative Offences Code of the RSFSR 1984. The author analyzes key concepts related to administrative responsibility, and finds that a Soviet legislator semantically matched the concept of 'administrative offence' with the term 'offence', introduced into the Administrative Offences Code 2001,which became a system error that led to the loss of the scope and criteria for regulation and eventually transformed the responsibility for administrative offences into the overall legal responsibility for a wrongdoing. Such changes from distorting mechanisms of legal liability and legislation on administrative offences has been turned into a platform for widespread use of disproportionate sanctions. This article takes an opportunity to address the problem and identifies the need for a substantial revision of all legislation, including the Criminal Code, on the basis of the principle of proportionality of punishments.
The article analyses the compatibility of state sovereignty with limited government as constitutional value. The author believes that it can be achieved only when the concept of limited state sovereignty is recognized. Very progressive concept of limited state sovereignty concept is to be the concept of sovereignty as responsibility.
Analyzing compliance of the internment to the requirement of “lawfulness” established in the international human rights law, the author concludes that the Second Additional Protocol on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflicts of a Non-International Character of 1977, contrary to the point of view widely represented in the international legal scholarship and used in practice, can not serve as a legal basis for the application of this measure. As such a basis can serve national regulations or sources of international law that meet the requirements of “legality”. However, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 imposes on its states-parties excessive obligations to respect the right to freedom of an individual. In the light of such obligations the internment exercised without derogation from this right and carried out on the basis of national law, would be contrary to Para. 1 of Article 5 of the Convention. In addition, the position of the European Court of Human Rights is that the Resolutions of the UN Security Council can not be regarded as providing a State’s obligation to intern without bringing a charge against detained persons and without providing legal guarantees.
This paper substantiates the conclusion that for the purpose of establishing the scope and content of the procedural rights and guarantees to be provided to civilian internees, one should refer to the regulations of international human rights law, which are also applicable in armed conflicts of non-international character. Increasing number of rights and freedoms, from which no derogations are allowed and also emergence of an array of both treaty and customary law regulations of international law on combatting enforced disappearances, influenced the development of the scope of rights and guarantees to be provided to the persons detained in the course of armed conflicts. In particular, such safeguards include: habeas corpus; right to verify the legality of detention by an independent and impartial body; right to be informed of the reasons for internment; the right to legal assistance; the right to be registered and kept in officially recognized place of internment.
The construction of the legal (legalistic) assessment that is widely applied in the context of criminal law has not been properly analyzed as an institution of the relevant branch of law. This article analyzes the concept of the legal (legalistic) assessment, considers the elements of its structure (object, subject, ground and nature) and peculiarities if its manifestation. The article examines the process of implementation of this construction within the framework of the branch of criminal law, in particular, it addresses the issue of consideration of the qualification of crimes (criminal law qualification) as a type of legal (legalistic) assessment. As the analysis of sources has shown, in the doctrine of criminal law the legal (legalistic) assessment has been applied to particular categories and subcategories of crimes, objects of criminal infringement, some elements of the objective side of the crime, actions the criminality of which can be excluded, particular institutions of criminal law, particular articles of the CC of the RF, particular criminal law categories. The author justifies the statement that particular criminal law prohibitions must be subjected to the comprehensive assessment. A criminal law prohibition must be assessed as a regulatory legal prescription, a legislative legal construction that enshrines all possible types (models) of criminal conduct declared illegal under the criminal legislation in a specific historical period; as a formal state power command of regulatory nature that contains a personal obligation not to commit (omit to commit) socially dangerous acts declared illegal by the criminal law and that interpret social relations from the perspective of the mechanism of criminal law impact. The author concludes that in respect of a particular criminal prohibition its social causation and validity must be assessed, as well as its semantic content and the form of presentation as a criminal law prescription. At the same time the practice of implementation of a particular prohibition, i.e. its assessment as a state power command of regulatory nature, is to be assessed as well. Legal assessment of a criminal law prohibition that includes determination of its essential elements and characteristics and that is aimed at determining its social value is caused by the ambiguity of its social and legal nature. This is largely due to the grounds for assessment of a particular prohibition that also depend on the choice of the subject of assessment. Comprehensive legal assessment of a particular legal prohibition, having objective and subjective nature, should reflect the assessment of its various incarnations, acting as a "bridge" connecting theory and practice.
Sexual harassment in the workplace has now become a significant social problem and, as a result, criminal legislation in many countries has included provisions prohibiting it. In our country, despite the change in moral standards of permitted forms of sexual behavior, the legislator has not yet implemented the requirements of the Council of Europe Convention On preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (CETS No. 210) (Istanbul Convention). The existing system of criminal law prohibitions does not effectively protect the individual from sexual harassment committed in the sphere of labor relations. Among the varieties of such acts not prohibited by the criminal law the author names the inducement to the actions of a sexual nature (associated with not the use of service dependencies, but regular contacts within the framework of labor relations); physical contact (touch), not conditioned by the nature or content of work, while not forming signs of sexual assault and causing physical pain; verbal or nonverbal abuse of a sexual nature; sexual harassment (harassment); other mental effects of a sexual nature. As shown by the analysis, these forms of deviant behavior has sufficient social danger, and the relative prevalence for their criminalization. The minimum harm from sexual harassment in the workplace is the negative impact on the psyche of the victim (both women and men), the degree of such impact due to the long-term nature of the labor realtions also becomes quite significant. In order to prevent excessive criminalization and reduce the risk of unjustified criminal prosecution, it is proposed to introduce a ban with the so called administrative prejudice, which implies the incurrence of administrative responsibility for sexual harassment in the workplace, and incurrence of criminal one — only for repeated actions of a person previously subjected to administrative punishment.
The article is concerned with the current status in Russian criminal legislation of a specific concept of international humanitarian law – command responsibility. The author traces the implementation of such norms in pre-1917 and Soviet legislation, and then turns to the current Criminal Code of 1996. He concludes that there is no overall scheme for such liability in the Russian Criminal Code because neither the general part of it with regard to complicity no the special part in its specific crimes provide the criminal responsibility of commanders. As a consequence there are difficult criminal cases where the penal responsibility of the accused might be properly established only on the basis of command responsibility.