Andreechev I.S. —
The balance between centralization and decentralization of anti-corruption legal regulation with regards to public officials
// Administrative and municipal law. – 2021. – ¹ 4.
– P. 69 - 90.
DOI: 10.7256/2454-0595.2021.4.36383
URL: https://en.e-notabene.ru/ammag/article_36383.html
Read the article
Abstract: The subject of this research is the anti-corruption legal regulation with regards to public officials from the perspective of balance between centralization and decentralization of such regulation. The goal lies in critical analysis of the established normative framework in the area of prevention of corruption for assessing the effectiveness of the applied mechanism of legal regulation. Anti-corruption legal regulation is characterized with multiplicity of normative acts, distribution or duplication of the normative legal content of acts of superior legal force in the acts of inferior legal force. Special attention is given to the examples of decentralization of anti-corruption regulation and methods of ensuring its coherence. The author provides the examples of centralization of anti-corruption regulation, which stemmed from the development of anti-corruption instruments. The conducted research allowed making recommendations on systematization of anti-corruption legislation with centralization and comprehensive anti-corruption regulation with regards to public officials. The key decrees of the President of the Russian Federation in the sphere of anti-corruption regulation with regards to public officials have been adopted over the period from 2009 to 201, and require refinement, taking into consideration the accumulated experience of their legal enforcement. The author also suggest legislating the content of the principle of uniform state policy in the sphere of prevention of corruption.
Andreechev I.S. —
Correlation between unification and differentiation of anti-corruption regulation with regards to public officials
// Law and Politics. – 2021. – ¹ 2.
– P. 46 - 60.
DOI: 10.7256/2454-0706.2021.2.35116
URL: https://en.e-notabene.ru/lpmag/article_35116.html
Read the article
Abstract: The subject of this research is critical analysis of the differences and similarities of anti-corruption measures established by legislation on corruption prevention in relation to different categories of public officials. A comparison of such positions held is carried out. The goal of this work consists in the assessment of anti-corruption requirements, restrictions, prohibitions, and obligations imposed on various officials, as well as in determination of whether they should be differentiated or unified. The author examines the impact of unification and differentiation upon the development of anti-corruption legislation, and makes proposals on the improvement of anti-corruption regulation. The article employs formal-legal, systemic, and comparative methods. The conclusion is made that the optimal mechanism for anti-corruption regulation should be based on a combination of differentiation and unification with prevalence of the latter. The need for differentiation of anti-corruption restrictions and mechanisms for their implementation should be substantiated by the peculiarities of the status of category of a public official. All amendments to anti-corruption legislation should be examined from the perspective of application of unification requirement, as well as any differentiation should be justified. The acquired results allow formulating recommendations for the improvement of legislation on corruption prevention. For systematization of legislation and its analysis for appropriate application of differentiation or unification of anti-corruption regulation, the author offers an algorithm for assessing substantive and procedural anti-corruption regulation.