13. Special administrative and legal statuses of citizens.
Special APS- enrich the overall APS, because An entity that has a special APS acquires a certain set of rights and obligations.
Signs:
1. Special legal basis, special laws and by-laws in relation to this category of persons. 2. This category is in constant legal relations with public administration bodies.
3. Include additional administrative rights and obligations in relation to general law. Scroll:
1) persons whose freedom is limited administratively
2) persons who have suffered from extraordinary situations and are in need of administrative refugee care,
forced migrants, orphans, unemployed.
3) foreign citizens and stateless persons
4) state and municipal employees.
5) Residents of a territory with a special administrative region
6) students.
To establish a special status you must:
1.Procedure for legalization of status
2. Conditions for the basis for obtaining status
3. List of restrictions, encumbrances and obligations
4.additional rights and powers
5. powers and rights of the administration in relation to 3rd parties
6. procedure for confirming special status, its extension and registration
7. the basis and procedure for loss and deprivation of status.
14. Administrative and legal status of foreign citizens and stateless persons.
The general legal status of foreign citizens and stateless persons is determined by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Federal Law No. M115 of July 25, 2002 “On the legal status of foreign citizens in the Russian Federation,” other Federal Laws, as well as international treaties.
Foreign citizen - A person who is not a citizen of the Russian Federation and has evidence of citizenship of a foreign state.
Stateless person (stateless)– a person who is not a citizen of the Russian Federation and does not have evidence of citizenship of a foreign state.
According to the time of stay on the territory of Russia, foreign citizens and stateless persons are divided into:
- temporarily staying in the Russian Federation, those. arriving in the Russian Federation on the basis of a visa or in a manner that does not require a visa, and who do not have a residence permit or temporary residence permit (transit passengers, crew members of sea and river vessels);
-temporarily residing in RF – who have received a temporary residence permit in the Russian Federation, issued as a mark in the identity document of a foreign citizen or stateless person. The period of temporary stay is determined by the validity period of the issued visa;
-foreign citizens permanently residing in the Russian Federation and persons without citizenship - these are persons who have received a residence permit, issued after living in the Russian Federation for at least 1 year on the basis of a temporary residence permit. A residence permit is issued by the territorial internal affairs body for 5 years and can be renewed several times.
Entry of foreign citizens and stateless persons into the territory of the Russian Federation, residence, transit arrival is carried out with a special permit - a visa issued by diplomatic missions and consular offices of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, as well as by the bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation and issued with a mastic stamp in the passport or on a separate form.
Visas are divided into diplomatic, service, ordinary, transit, temporary stay, tourist, business, educational, etc.
The regulation on making a decision on the undesirability of the stay (residence) of a foreign citizen or stateless person in the Russian Federation determines the executive authority authorized to make such decisions (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Internal Affairs, Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Health, Foreign Intelligence Service, Ministry of Justice) and the procedure for their execution.
By Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation, the Federal Migration Service of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation is entrusted with the creation, maintenance and use of a central bank for foreign citizens temporarily arriving and residing in the Russian Federation.
According to the Constitution of the Russian Federation (Article 62, Part 3), foreign citizens and stateless persons enjoy rights in the Russian Federation and bear responsibilities on an equal basis with citizens of the Russian Federation, except in cases established by the Federal Law and international treaties, in particular, they do not have the right:
Elect and be elected to federal bodies of state power and administrative groups of constituent entities of the Russian Federation;
Participate in the referendum of the Russian Federation and referendums of its constituent entities;
Be in state and municipal service;
Fill positions in the crew of a ship sailing under the State Flag of the Russian Federation;
Be a member of the crew of a Russian warship or another vessel operated for non-commercial purposes;
Be the commander of a civil aviation aircraft;
Be a member of Russian political parties;
Not allowed to engage in activities related to state secrets;
They do not bear military duty.
Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated October 11, 2002 No. 755 approved the list of objects and organizations in which foreign citizens do not have the right to be hired:
Objects and organizations of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, other troops and military formations;
Structural units for the protection of state secrets and units carrying out work related to the use of information constituting a state secret;
Organizations that include radiation-hazardous and nuclear-hazardous facilities where the development, production, operation, storage, transportation and disposal of nuclear weapons, radiation-hazardous materials and products are carried out.
Government Decree No. 754 of October 11, 2002 also approved a list of territories, organizations and objects for entry into which foreign citizens require special permission:
Territories of closed administrative-territorial entities and closed military camps;
Territories with regulated visits for foreign citizens;
Territories where a state of emergency and martial law has been introduced;
Territories where special conditions and conditions of stay have been introduced due to the danger of the spread of infectious diseases and poisoning of people;
Counter-terrorism operations zones;
Border zones;
Facilities where government bodies and other bodies and organizations are located that carry out activities related to the use of information constituting state secrets;
Other territories, organizations and objects for which Russian citizens require special permission to visit.
State Duma deputies on Wednesday adopted in the third reading the bill “On the Moscow State University named after M. Lomonosov and St. Petersburg State University.” This document determines the status of both universities as federal state budgetary institutions, the founders of which are the government of the Russian Federation.
According to the bill, the charter of both universities will be approved by the government, and rectors will be appointed by the President of the Russian Federation. At the same time, their term of office at both Moscow State University and St. Petersburg State University is stipulated: it cannot exceed five years. However, by decision of the head of state, rectors can be appointed for a new term. The president also has the right to early release heads of universities from their positions.
The bill determines that both universities “include branches, representative offices, faculties and other units without the right of legal entity.” In addition, they “may include legal entities, including institutions.” The heads of these legal entities, which are part of the complex of both universities, must be appointed and dismissed by the rectors of these universities in agreement with the executive authority authorized by the government of the Russian Federation. The deans and heads of departments of both universities will be elected in the manner prescribed by their charters.
The bill determines that the procedure for financing legal entities that are part of the scientific and educational complex of both universities from the federal budget will be maintained until the day the federal budget law for 2010 comes into force.
An example for others
Rector of St. Petersburg State University Nikolai Kropachev believes that the adoption of the law on the special status of Moscow State University and St. Petersburg State University will allow the country's largest universities to become an example for Russian educational institutions.
“With the adoption of the law, the country’s two largest universities have an important task: they must show by example to Russian educational institutions new models of work in all areas, including scientific, educational and innovative activities,” the university’s press service quoted Kropachev as saying on Wednesday.
In turn, the president of St. Petersburg State University Lyudmila Verbitskaya told Interfax that the adoption of the law in the third reading is “a purely technical issue.” “However, we are very happy about this, because we have been striving for this for a long time, a lot of work has been done,” she noted. According to her, the special status of the university allows the university to independently prepare educational programs and plans. “This, on the one hand, emphasizes great trust in us, and on the other hand, it is a great responsibility. We must become an example for all universities.”
The press service of St. Petersburg State University emphasized that thanks to the new law, the university will be able to flexibly respond to changes in society’s needs for educational services high level, make maximum use of intellectual and other resources, as well as ensure the promotion of their own educational programs in the global educational services market.
Liability Law
Meanwhile, the rector of Moscow State University Viktor Sadovnichy believes that the law on the status of Moscow and St. Petersburg state universities will allow preserving the fundamental foundations of the domestic high school. According to him, “the draft law under discussion systematizes a number of already existing special opportunities that have so far been regulated by various legal acts.”
For example, we're talking about on the right to independently establish educational standards, the right to conduct additional specialized entrance tests, the right to issue their own educational diplomas. "That is why this law- a law of responsibility, not a law of privilege. About the responsibility of leading and oldest Russian universities to colleagues, society and the state,” Sadovnichy said, adding that “the new bill is a step towards fixing a new structure.”
“Already today there are federal universities designed to become the leading educational and scientific centers of Russia, national research universities, whose task is to carry out serious Scientific research and develop new production technologies, there are also regional universities. Together they are called upon to solve the entire range of academic problems, but at the same time, for each of them one or another function is a priority,” said the rector of Moscow State University.
Speaking about why these two universities are given special status, Sadovnichy said: “This is due to history. Firstly, these universities are the oldest and largest in Russia. Secondly, their scale, versatility of academic processes and political role- in the sense of education policy."
The law on the special status of certain regions of Donbass may remain only on paper. Initially conceived as a framework initiative (it will be filled with real meaning after the adoption of additional by-laws), it immediately aroused rejection both from the executive branch - especially those officials who are running for parliamentary elections on the lists of competitors of the presidential party, and the DPR/LPR. He was also subject to obstruction by the “Maidan” public, who regarded the law as concessions to Russia, and, therefore, as a manifestation of the weakness of the government. Will the peace process withstand such an attack or will the war flare up with renewed vigor?
A declaration, not a law
Let us remind you, Rada guaranteed territories controlled by the DPR/LPR, the right to expanded powers of local self-government (in particular, the right to create their own people’s militia and influence the appointment of prosecutors and judges), special relations with the Russian Federation, protected amounts of funding from the state budget. Local government elections are also scheduled to take place in the territories on December 7.
And although the wording of the law is quite vague and requires clarification, the ministers of Arseniy Yatsenyuk’s government have already said that in reality everything will not be the same as in the law. For example, protected financing from the state budget through taxes, which will be determined every year. Justice Minister Pavel Petrenko has already stated that the Cabinet of Ministers will not allocate a single penny to the areas of Donbass controlled by militants. “We will finance restoration from the state budget only when Ukrainian power is restored in this territory and enterprises begin to operate. The formula is simple - chip in and restore. And not at the expense of the entire Ukraine,” - developed topic of Arseniy Yatsenyuk at a government meeting. On his instructions, the Ministry of Finance will create a special fund, which will be filled at the expense of business owners and international assistance. However, the oligarchs are unlikely to want to fill the “Donbass piggy bank.” According to economist Alexander Okhrimenko, for those who profited from the ATO, the start of the peace process means a loss of economic benefit. Therefore, the law is unlikely to really work.
“The law, which is actually four pages long, is nothing more than a declaration. It was accepted so that Putin would make the next move and continue the withdrawal of troops from Donbass,” Anton Gerashchenko, adviser to the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, explained the government’s logic on air on the “” channel.
Red rag for Maidan
The president and his political force could not come up with a better “gift” to opponents from the Maidan camp on the eve of the elections than “special status” for part of the Donbass regions. Soon after the vote, the Rada’s decision was blasted to smithereens by Yulia Tymoshenko, calling it “a complete surrender of Ukraine’s interests in Donbass, legalizing terrorism and the occupation of Ukraine.” Both Oleg Tyagnibok and Oleg Lyashko spoke in a similar vein. Dmitry Yarosh went the furthest: “The adoption of the law is an attempt at an anti-state coup. If Poroshenko doesn’t come to his senses, we will have a new president and commander-in-chief,” he threatened on the social network.
It turns out that the law, conceived as a stabilizer of the situation in Donbass (or at least giving the army a break), was perceived by the most radical politicians as a red rag provoking anti-presidential sentiments among his comrades on the Maidan.
- Poroshenko: “I will offer Donbass rights that others have not had in history”
“The indignation of the patriotically minded part of society is understandable: it is caused by both the essence of the law - political capitulation, and the form of adoption - the cynical manipulation of the concept of “parliamentarism,” says political scientist Vladimir Tsybulko. - Now those who identify themselves with the Maidan and its values have weapons in their hands. The volunteer battalions, the National Guard soldiers, and the Ukrainian Armed Forces are simply outraged, because it was their brothers who shed blood in the Donbass.”
Will there be a truce?
The law did not meet with understanding among the leaders of the DPR/LPR. They stated that they do not care what laws Ukraine passes, and the document on special status is just a reason to start negotiations, at the end of which there will be independence of the DPR/LPR, and within the borders of the Lugansk and Donetsk regions.
Finally, the tightening of rhetoric and actions of the West is noteworthy. Thus, during Poroshenko’s visit to the States, a new package of sanctions against Russia and the provision of military assistance to Ukraine from the United States was announced.
“If someone is being armed, this is not about philanthropic considerations. Appearance large quantity weapons in the conflict zone are unlikely to contribute to the de-escalation of the conflict; we can even talk about the unfolding of a more global conflict,” believes political expert Kost Bondarenko.
Will the truce be able to withstand all these blows?
Bondarenko believes that he can: “The Europeans and especially the United States are unlikely to escalate in the next month and a half. On November 4, special elections for the Senate and Congress will be held, and the Democrats are still losing in votes. Obama is unlikely to want to spoil his rating with a new escalation in Ukraine, which he did not fail to inform the Ukrainian authorities about.” Political scientist Vladimir Fesenko estimates the probability of maintaining the truce at 15–20%. “It can fail at any stage, because the law does not provide any guarantees. However, this is at least a small chance,” the expert concluded.
Minsk negotiations
Today in Minsk will take place negotiations of the group to resolve the situation in Donbass. As the special representative of the president, ex-president Leonid Kuchma, said at a meeting with the Russian Ambassador to Ukraine Mikhail Zurabov, the special representative of the OSCE Chairman Heidi Tagliavini and representatives of the DPR and LPR, they plan to adopt a detailed ceasefire document behind closed doors. RIA Novosti's source in the Russian Mission to the OSCE clarified: the document will say what weapons should be withdrawn and to what distance the troops will be withdrawn.
P.A. ROMASHOV, Candidate of Legal Sciences, Lecturer at the Department of Constitutional and Financial Law, Perm State University The meaning of the concept of “administrative-territorial unit with a special status” is considered, and the features of the status of such territories in foreign countries are analyzed. The idea is expressed about the need to legislatively consolidate the constitutional and legal status of district administrative-territorial entities as a form of national statehood of the peoples of the former autonomous okrugs.
P.A. ROMASHOV,
Candidate of Legal Sciences, Lecturer at the Department of Constitutional and Financial Law, Perm State University
The meaning of the concept of “administrative-territorial unit with a special status” is considered, and the features of the status of such territories in foreign countries are analyzed. The idea is expressed about the need to legislatively consolidate the constitutional and legal status of district administrative-territorial entities as a form of national statehood of the peoples of the former autonomous districts.
Key words: special status of administrative-territorial unit, autonomy, autonomous district.
We consider the meaning of "administrative-territorial unit with special status", analyzes the features of the status of these territories in foreign countries. Suggests the need for legislative consolidation of constitutional and legal status of district administrative and territorial entities as a form of national statehood of the peoples of the former autonomous regions.
Keywords: special status administrative-territorial unit, autonomy, autonomous district.
The concept of “administrative-territorial unit with a special status” introduced into constitutional law Russian Federation in 2004, in accordance with the federal constitutional laws on the formation of new subjects of the Russian Federation, the science of Russian law is just beginning to be comprehended, and since the federal legislator has not yet used its powers to normatively fill the “special status” of the territories of the former autonomous okrugs that have ceased to exist as subjects of the Russian Federation, therefore we should resort to an analogy. In order to understand the nature of the concept under consideration, it is necessary to turn to closely related constitutional and legal categories.
In this regard, it should be noted that an administrative-territorial unit can be considered as a subject of constitutional and legal relations with its own (special) status. In this sense, it represents a certain public-territorial entity. The status of an administrative-territorial entity can be general and special (special).
Subjects of federations (states, cantons, provinces, lands, etc.), political-territorial and administrative-territorial entities (regions, regions, departments, districts, communities) are given general status. Along with entities with a general status, entities with a special status are established in federal and unitary states. This is a generally accepted practice that meets the constitutional and legal requirements of foreign countries.
A special status is given to such political-territorial or administrative-territorial entities that, unlike other territories, have greater independence (or autonomy). States that are under the protectorate (patronage) of another state (protector) also have a special status. Among the first are various kinds of autonomies, as well as national regions and federal districts.
In addition, there are other parts of the territory with a special status. These are federal territories (for example, the island of Guam in the USA, the Virgin Islands, Eastern Samoa), federal possessions, as well as associated states (Puerto Rico, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the United States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palua).
Federal districts and other isolated parts of territory with a special status (federal territories, possessions, associated states) are directly included in or united with the national federal state. While national regions are or may be part of another political-territorial entity that is part of the state. In turn, autonomies are directly part of the national state (unitary government structure) or are part of a federal subject (Soviet federal state - RSFSR).
For example, in Italy and Spain, autonomous status was granted to all territorial collectives, and varying degrees of independence were provided for individual categories regions (autonomous regions). Both national-territorial entities were created (the region of Terentino-Alto Adige in Italy; the regions of Catalonia, Galicia, the Basque Country in Spain), and regions on an administrative-territorial basis.
At the same time, in the Spanish doctrine, a sociological definition was generally accepted, according to which the region was considered as a stable human group, historically formed on the basis of a common territory, economic life, mental makeup and language, which led to the formation of a special culture.
Thus, the normative content of “special status” by the federal legislator can be carried out in such a way as to allow compactly living national and/or linguistic minorities to have a more significant influence on decision-making in the political, cultural and economic fields concerning these minorities. Moreover, as correctly noted by V.A. Kryazhkov, on the territory of each Autonomous Okrug, with the exception of the Evenki Autonomous Okrug, the absolute majority of people living in Russia are of indigenous nationality, which gave its name to the corresponding subject of the Federation. Representatives of these nationalities retain their unique language, culture, way of life and economic activity.
Successful examples of this kind of government practice include the Åland Islands in Finland, which have a mainly Swedish population. Currently, the Finnish Constitution of June 11, 1999 (1999/731) contains a special chapter regarding the autonomy of the Åland Islands, but it only refers the regulation of this issue to a special law and a law on the right to acquire land on these islands.
Self-government of the Sami is not constitutionally regulated either. According to the Act of Autonomy of August 16, 1991, adopted by the Finnish Parliament, the islands were granted the status of an autonomous region.
A similar example can also be considered in Greenland (the majority of the population is Inuit), in which, on the basis of the Law on Local Government, adopted by the Danish Parliament on November 29, 1978, local government bodies were created, including both legislative and executive powers.
Thus, territorial autonomy is applied in cases where an ethnic group, which is a minority in the overall population of the country, lives compactly and constitutes the majority in a certain region. However, it should be taken into account that autonomy in this case is not granted to a national group, but to the territory in which the entire population of a given region lives. The fact is that such territorial division can become a practical means of ensuring the existence and identity of a national group, but only on the condition that it is given democratic rather than ethnocratic content. After all, in a given territory, a national minority already becomes a majority in relation to representatives of the main population of the state, who become a minority here and, accordingly, themselves need special protection.
An administrative-territorial unit with a special status, being a single isolated part of the territory of a newly formed subject of the Russian Federation, can be considered as one-row in a number of national regions and administrative autonomous entities. At the same time, an administrative-territorial unit with a special status, by definition, does not have the features of political autonomy or state-territorial entities that are directly included in nation states or connected to it in some other established form (such as federal possessions, federal territories, etc.). In particular, the purpose of the reincarnation of districts as administrative-territorial units with a special status was to “cleanse” their state-political existence in the form of subjects of the Russian Federation.
Therefore, identifying the content of the main elements of the special status of an administrative-territorial unit must begin with resolving the issue of the possibility of implementation by an administrative-territorial unit with a special status of the elements of the status of administrative autonomy and/or national region.
It should be borne in mind that the status of autonomies and national regions has individual characteristics. If the first is basically determined by local government, then the second is institutionalized on different principles. Such a principle can be one or another form of “protective” management “from above”, ensuring trusteeship and patronage relations between the subject of management and the managed. The trend towards “protectoral” institutionalization of administrative-territorial units with a special status has already emerged in a number of newly formed constituent entities of the Russian Federation (for example, in the Perm, Kamchatka territories, Irkutsk region). Therefore, it is unlikely that this phenomenon can be avoided.
The results of the study of the special legal status of autonomies are presented in numerous scientific works. They propose basic conceptual approaches that can be taken as the basis for determining the content of the special status of an administrative-territorial unit.
At the same time, the trusteeship-patronage (“protectoral”) relationship between the central government and its part has been little studied. Therefore, along with the issue of identifying elements of autonomization, within the framework of this article the goal is to determine whether it is advisable to formalize the institution of “protectorate” in relations between administrative-territorial units with a special status and the constituent entities of the Russian Federation of which they are a part.
In the process of forming a new subject of the Russian Federation, two initial parameters of the constitutional and legal status of territorial entities acquiring a special status within a given subject of the Russian Federation are defined in contractual form - these are 1) territorial unity and 2) independence in resolving local affairs. It is precisely this position of theirs, and not any other (for example, “protectoral”) that can be justified by the “former liberties and rights” that these territories had as subjects of the Russian Federation.
Based on this, it is acceptable that an administrative-territorial unit with a special status will strive to ensure that it does not lose this independence and, moreover, maintains it in one form or another. IN modern Russia the public legal form of independence of this type of entity can be administrative (local) autonomy, or local self-government, local government, which are characterized by both territorial unity and their own competence. It is these features of the named territorial entities that were considered essential in Russian state law.
So, according to N.M. Korkunov, autonomies are areas that enjoy varying degrees of independence. Therefore, it is no coincidence that regional (local) autonomy in that period was often characterized as local self-government (local government). In particular, F.F. Kokoshkin considered regional autonomy and local self-government (local government) as single-order phenomena. The scientist did not see any fundamental difference between them. The right of local self-government (local government) is subsumed under the concept of autonomy by other researchers. Self-government, as noted by K. Kulczycki (Mazowiecki), means a certain independence of local institutions in relation to the central government authorities in the administrative affairs of a province, city, community, carried out through persons from the local society, using their duties either at the choice of the local population or at their own discretion. social status.
What is also common between regional (local) autonomy and local self-government (local government) is that these entities act, as a rule, as parts of a unitary state; they are not constituent entities of the federation. An exception to this rule is the RSFSR, whose subjects recognized not only political, but also administrative autonomies (regions, districts).
Another common feature of the territorial entities under consideration is the control of the central government in solving local problems. In autonomous entities, as well as in self-governing communities, a number of issues of local importance were resolved under the direct or indirect control of territorial government bodies.
At the same time, Russian state studies rightly emphasized that autonomy and local self-government have significant differences. One of them was the right of autonomy to make laws. The presence of such authority made it possible to consider autonomy as a political entity. However, administrative autonomy is not given the right to make laws; it is only given the right to govern. In this, it came closer to local government (local government), which did not perform legislative functions. A significant difference is also that autonomy, in contrast to local self-government (local government), was established on a national-territorial principle. These territories, as noted by F.F. Kokoshkin, in the Russian state they were endowed with the rights of provincial autonomy with a relatively narrow range of jurisdiction related to purely local affairs. In part, this is the same circle of affairs in which the activities of zemstvos now revolve, but the difference will be that in these areas of life the zemstvo will issue not only mandatory regulations (administrative acts. - P.R.), as now, but will issue local laws in the field of sanitation, public education, road construction, etc.
Despite the relatively narrow range of areas of management, the institutionalization of autonomous entities and local self-government (local government) ensures the decentralization of state life and, accordingly, the independence of administrative autonomous entities created on an ethnic basis.
In connection with the above, it should be noted that in modern Russia, national regions are created on a national basis. Such areas are components that are directly included in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. On the territory of these regions, public administration is carried out with the participation of citizens in local affairs and taking into account the interests of the latter, determined by the characteristics of language, life, and culture.
The institution of a national district is essentially a formalization of trusteeship and patronage relations that develop between the state (protector) and the ethnic group living compactly in the territory of the district and under state tutelage. At the same time, national districts have a number of rights characteristic of local self-government (local government). This situation determines their independence in solving local problems.
So, it should be recognized that an administrative-territorial unit with a special status, being an independent territorially unified entity, can acquire both the form of administrative autonomy and the form of local self-government or local government. Each of these forms ensures the unity of an administrative-territorial unit with a special status and its independence in resolving local affairs on the basis of linguistic and ethnocultural identity.
At the same time, the constitution of administrative-territorial units with a special status in the form of national districts, structuring trusteeship and patronage ties between administrative-territorial units and subjects of the Russian Federation, is very problematic. Since the autonomous okrugs, on the basis of which administrative-territorial units with a special status are established, have quite a wealth of experience independent decision not only purely local and regional issues, but also direct resolution of issues of state life, including participation in the management of the affairs of the Federation as subjects of the Russian Federation.
Therefore, the emerging departure from the designated political tradition, even if motivated by the “improvement of federal relations in Russia,” cannot be transformed into a purely centralist type of government of a politically consolidated territory. An adequate form of political existence of the latter can, it seems, be one or another form of autonomy or local self-government (local government).
It seems that a different approach to regulating the special status of the territories of former autonomous okrugs is extremely dangerous, since the denial of administrative-territorial independence determined by the special status of the okrug leads, at best, to paternalism in the management of the corresponding territory (to a return to the pre-October period), and at worst case - to nullify the national identity of the indigenous people.
For the above reasons, one cannot but agree with O.E. Kutafin, who points to the emergence on the territory of Russia of a new type of autonomy - an autonomous okrug, which is not a subject of the Federation. In favor of such a statement, as he correctly noted, is the argument that the very reasons that led to the creation, in particular, of the Komi-Permyak Okrug as an autonomous entity have not disappeared. This reason is precisely the need to ensure the protection of indigenous peoples of the North, Siberia and Far East Russian Federation.
In this regard, the legislative consolidation of the new constitutional and legal status of district administrative-territorial entities as a form of national statehood of the peoples of the former autonomous districts is of particular relevance. In the current political situation, this task can most effectively be solved only by a federal legislator who is not bound by narrow local interests. Therefore, the adoption of a federal law on administrative-territorial units with a special status within the newly formed constituent entities of the Russian Federation should be considered as a priority measure for the federal legislator.
Bibliography
1 Federal Constitutional Law of March 25, 2004 No. 1-FKZ “On the formation of a new subject of the Russian Federation within the Russian Federation as a result of the unification of the Perm Region and the Komi-Permyak Autonomous Okrug”; Federal Constitutional Law of October 14, 2005 No. 6- Federal Constitutional Law "On the formation of a new subject of the Russian Federation within the Russian Federation as a result of the unification of the Krasnoyarsk Territory, the Taimyr (Dolgano-Nenets) Autonomous Okrug and the Evenki Autonomous Okrug"; Federal Constitutional Law of July 12, 2006 No. 2-FKZ "On the formation of Russian Federation of a new subject of the Russian Federation as a result of the unification of the Kamchatka region and the Koryak Autonomous Okrug"; Federal Constitutional Law of December 30, 2006 No. 6-FKZ "On the formation of a new subject of the Russian Federation within the Russian Federation as a result of the unification of the Irkutsk region and Ust-Ordyn Buryat Autonomous Okrug".
2 See: Chirkin V.E. Constitutional law of foreign countries. - M., 1997. P. 168.
3 Vasilyeva T.A. Regional autonomy: Italian and Spanish version. // Soviet state and law. 1986. No. 11. P. 127.
4 See Vandelli L. L"ordinamento regionale spagnolo. Milano, 1980. P. 49-50.
5 Kryazhkov V.A. Status of autonomous okrugs: evolution and problems // Russian Federation. 1996. No. 2. P. 49.
6 Kharyuchi S.N. Development of legislation on the protection of the rights of indigenous peoples in the Russian Federation // Journal of Russian Law. No. 7. July. 2006. P. 49.
7 Vishnyak M.V. Autonomy and Federation. Pg., 1917; Dinze V. What is autonomy. Pg., 1917; Zheleznov B.L. Autonomy, real and imaginary. - Kazan, 1981; Zlatopolsky D.A. The USSR is a federal state. - M., 1967; Kokoshkin F.F. Regional autonomy and unity of Russia. - M., 1906; Kutafin O.E. Russian autonomy: monograph. - M., 2006, etc.
8 Kotlyarevsky S.A. Power and law: the problem of the rule of law. - M., 1915. P. 272.
9 Korkunov N.M. Russian state law. - St. Petersburg, 1893. T. 1. P. 133.
10 Kokoshkin F.F. Regional autonomy and unity of Russia. M., 1906. P. 6-7.
11 Kulczycki K. (Mazowiecki). Autonomy and federation in modern constitutional states. - M., 1907. P. 59.
12 See: Constitution of the RSFSR 1978 // Gazette of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR. 1978. No. 15. Art. 407.
13 Autonomy, federation and the national question / Ed. V.M. Hesse. - St. Petersburg, 1906. P. 27.
14 Kokoshkin F.F. Decree. op. P. 18.
15 Kutafin O.E. Russian autonomy. - M., 2006. P. 450-451..
Share this article with your colleagues:Each citizen has a general administrative-legal status (a certain set of rights, obligations, guarantees, etc. in the field of public administration), at the same time he can be the subject of one or several special statuses.
The essence of special administrative legal statuses is that, having become the subject of one or another special status, a citizen acquires for himself additional rights, benefits and obligations, or additional restrictions and measures of responsibility are imposed on him.
The most common special administrative legal statuses are:
- status of members of administrative teams;
- status of subjects of administrative guardianship;
- status of residents of territories with a special administrative and legal regime;
- status of subjects of the licensing system.
1. Status of members of administrative teams. In the legal literature, the administrative team is understood as the personnel of an organization in which the relations of its members with the administration, their rights and obligations are regulated by administrative law (various disciplinary statutes, rules, regulations) (D. N. Bakhrakh). The subjects of this special status are students (for example, schoolchildren, students, graduate students), state civil servants, military personnel, police officers, etc. The peculiarity is that the subjects of this status acquire a set of rights and responsibilities (students, military personnel etc.), including the possibility of bringing to disciplinary liability according to the norms of administrative law.
2. Status of subjects of administrative guardianship. The grounds for acquiring a special administrative and legal status may be demographic circumstances, technical and environmental disasters, unfavorable social factors, etc. The subjects of this special status are the unemployed, refugees, Chernobyl victims, disabled people, victims of political repression, etc., i.e. i.e. persons who, for one reason or another, need care from the state. The peculiarity is that subjects acquire mainly additional rights and benefits. This can be expressed in the issuance of monetary amounts (benefits), provision of various benefits (for example, payment of utilities), provision of housing, provision of special medical services, organizational assistance (for example, assistance in finding a job), etc.
3. Status of residents of territories with a special administrative and legal regime. A territory with a special administrative-legal regime is a territory that is permanently or temporarily in a special legal position (state border and border strip, closed cities, nature reserves, environmental disaster zones, territories where a state of emergency or martial law has been introduced, etc. ). The peculiarity is that subjects of this status acquire mainly additional responsibilities and restrictions. This is expressed in the introduction of special rules for entry and exit from the territory, in restricting freedom of movement and activity on the territory, undergoing additional control from government entities (document checks, curfews, etc.), in the use of administrative coercion (including administrative responsibility for violation of the regime), etc.
4. Status of subjects of the licensing system. The subjects of this special status are persons who have received special permission to exercise one or another right (the right to drive a vehicle, the right to hunt, the right to purchase firearms, etc.). The peculiarity is that subjects of this status acquire a special right (to drive a vehicle, hunt, etc.), as well as additional responsibilities associated with the exercise of this right. This status is also associated with the expansion of administrative tortiousness. The status includes the need to prepare and submit documents (applications, health certificates, etc.), undergo control by the relevant supervisory authorities and facilitate it (State Traffic Safety Inspectorate, etc.), compliance with the rules for the exercise of the granted right, etc.
