Administrative Discretion: Questions and Answers (Part 3)

This article completes a series of three scientific publications planned by the Editorial Board of the Siberian Law Review, the Authors of which discuss the problem of administrative discretion, which is very relevant for Russian administrative legal theory and legal practice, in a question-answer format. Contrary to the opinion justified by Petr P. Serkov in the previous article about the impossibility of a fruitful study of administrative discretion without referring to the “analytical potential of the mechanism of administrative legal relations”, Yuri P. Solovey gives arguments indicating the unsuitability of this “logical structure” for studying legal realities. From his point of view, the use of this artificial and meaningless concept, without a doubt, is a violation of the well-known methodological principle “Occam’s Razor”: one should not multiply things unnecessarily. In this regard, PetrP. Serkov was asked two questions: firstly, could he conduct, within the framework of this article, an indicative analysis of a specific discretionary administrative act using the “logical structure of the mechanism of administrative legal relations”, which would make it possible to draw a conclusion about the legality (illegality ) of such an act, and, secondly, what is its relation to the principles of administrative procedures as legal means of control over administrative discretion and the need for their extensive legislative consolidation. Anticipating the answers to the questions posed, Petr P. Serkov critically analyzes the arguments of “discretionary disagreement” of the specified Author. It is concluded that the phenomenon of administrative discretion covers any managerial decision made by any official of state executive bodies and local governments in the exercise of any of the powers assigned to him. Such a vision of administrative discretion implies a significant adjustment of the method of its research, the priorities of which should be a person, his consciousness and psyche. Concerning the first of the questions asked, Petr P. Serkov, using the “analytical potential of the mechanism of legal relations”, analyzes a hypothetical situation in which a police officer performs a discretionary administrative action by stopping a vehicle. The Author argues that the named “potential” clarifies not only what administrative discretion is, but also how it is formed and what it is intended for. Answering the second question, Petr P. Serkov notes that the procedural legal regulation of the activities of state executive bodies will certainly bring positive effects to the phenomenon of administrative discretion, but it is not clear to what extent the principles of administrative procedures are able to prevent illegal administrative discretion. It should be taken into account that scientific controversy regarding the understanding of legal principles has been going on for decades without the prospect of reaching a doctrinal consensus. In general, the discussion of the essence of administrative discretion shows, according to Petr P. Serkov, the imperfection of the current state and the conceptual vulnerability of the methodology of conducting scientific research and scientific controversy.

1. Chaban E. A. Administrative Law. Vol. 3. Theory of Administrative Discretion. Moscow: Eurasian Academy of Administrative Sciences Publ.; 2014. 280 p. (In Russ.).

2. Starostin S. A. Legal Relations: General Theoretical and Sectoral Aspects (Methodological Seminar Review). Actual Problems of Russian Law. 2019;7:172-191. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17803/1994-1471.2019.104.7.172-191 (In Russ.).

3. Starostin S. A. Review of the Monograph by P. P. Serkov “Legal Relationship (Theory and Practice of Modern Legal Regulation)” (in 3 pts. Moscow: Norma Publ., 2018). Lex Russica. 2018;10:182-188. (In Russ.).

4. Alekseev S. S. The Mechanism of Legal Regulation in a Socialist State. Moscow: Yuridicheskaya literatura Publ.; 1966. 187 p. (In Russ.).

5. Skripnik A. V. The Mechanism of Legal Regulation: Its Components and Content. Law and State: The Theory and Practice. 2019;4:6-9. (In Russ.).

6. Pankova O. V. The Main Directions of Research Mechanisms in Law in Modern Scientific Doctrine. Proceedings of Voronezh State University. Series: Pravo. 2020;1:66-80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17308/vsu.proc.law.2020.1/2392 (In Russ.).

7. Pavlyuk A. V. To the Question of the Concept of the Mechanism of Administrative and Legal Regulation. Law. Economy. Safety. 2015;1:54-57. (In Russ.).

8. Lanovaya G. M., Pravkina I. N. Legal Regulation Mechanism: Concept and Content. Agrarian and Land Law. 2019;3:14-17. (In Russ.).

9. Dudin A. P. Dialectics of Legal Relations. Saratov: Saratov University Publ.; 1983. 121 p. (In Russ.).

10. Protasov V. N. Legal Relationship as a System. Moscow: Yuridicheskaya literatura Publ.; 1991. 143 p. (In Russ.).

11. Khalfina R. O. Methodological Aspect of the Theory of Legal Relationship. Soviet State and Law. 1971;10:20- 27. (In Russ.).

12. Khalfina R. O. General Doctrine of Legal Relationship. Moscow: Yuridicheskaya literatura Publ.; 1974. 352 p. (In Russ.).

13. Shershenevich G. F. On the Sense of Legitimacy: Public Lecture Given On March 10, 1897. Voronezh: Voronezh State University Publ. House; 2018. 36 p. (In Russ.).

14. Bakhrakh D. N. Administrative Law Procedure, Administrative Justice, and Administrative Process. State and Law. 2005;2:19-25. (In Russ.).

15. Shchepalov S. V., Zaitsev D. I. Administrative and Judicial Discretion in Russian Science: Problems of Correlation. Tomsk State University Journal of Law. 2022;46:107-118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17223/22253513/46/8 (In Russ.).

16. Gavrilov A. M. Correlation of Positive and Negative Administrative Discretion. Vestnik of the Mari State University. Chapter “History. Law”. 2017;3(4):58-64. (In Russ.).

17. Bochkarev I. E. About Administrative Discretion in the Context of Development and Improvement of the Academic Discipline “Administrative Law”. Vestnik of Lobachevsky University of Nizhni Novgorod. 2019;1:90-102. (In Russ.).

18. Kazamirov A. I., Usmanova D. R. The Ratio of Administrative Discretion and Administrative Regulations. Austrian Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences. 2014;5-6:258-262. (In Russ.).

19. Starilov Yu. N. Administrative Law as a Means of Destroying the “Syndrome of Lack of Rights” in a Modern Legal State. Journal of Russian Law. 2005;4:29-45. (In Russ.).

20. Mikheeva I. V. Discretion in the State Control (Historical-and-Legal Aspect). Legal Science and Practice: Journal of Nizhny Novgorod Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2010;1:38-42. (In Russ.).

21. Sharnina L. A. Administrative Discretion in the Economic Sphere: Grounds and Limits. Proceedings of the Institute of State and Law of the RAS. 2018;13(5):151-173. (In Russ.).

22. Polupanov N. N., Slyusareva T. G. Role of Administrative Discretion in Implementing the Functions of Certain Types of Public Service. Legal Studies. 2013;3:80-84. (In Russ.).

23. Shevtsov S. G. Discretion, Arbitrariness, Persuasion: Linguistic, Doctrinal and Legislative Approaches. Eurasian Law Journal. 2011;11:48-52. (In Russ.).

24. Dubovitskii V. N. Legality and Discretion in the Soviet State Administration. Minsk: Nauka i tekhnika Publ.; 1984. 141 p. (In Russ.).

25. Tikhomirov Yu. A. Theory of Competence. Moscow: Yurinformtsentr Publ.; 2001. 355 p. (In Russ.).

26. Yarkovoy S. V. Administrative Discretion in the Law Enforcement by Administrative Public Bodies and Their Officials. Proceedings of Voronezh State University. Series: Pravo. 2017;1:144-152. (In Russ.).

27. Onosov Yu. V. Theoretical Foundations of the Study of Discretion in Law Enforcement. Bulletin of Ufa Law Institute of MIA of Russia. 2020;4:25-31. (In Russ.).

28. Malinovskij A. A. Discretion in Law. State and Law. 2006;4:102-104. (In Russ.).

29. Lazarev B. M. The Concept of Governing Bodies. Moscow: Yuridicheskaya literatura Publ.; 1972. 289 p. (In Russ.).

30. Dzhalilova E. A. Problems of Definition of the Concept and Essence of the Institute of Law. Vestnik of Volzhsky University Named After V. N. Tatishchev. 2018;1(2):22-31. (In Russ.).

31. Nikitin A. A. Discretion in the Law and Its Features. Saratov State Law Academy Bulletin. 2012;6:34-41. (In Russ.).

32. Demenkova N. G., Ignatova M. S. Role of the Modern Administrative Legislation in the Formation of Legal Consciousness. Bulletin of the South Ural State University. Series “Law”. 2018;18(4):68-74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14529/law180412 (In Russ.).

33. Sisakyan A. K. To the Question of the Degree of the Influence of Administrative Legal Consciousness and Legal Understanding on the Administrative-Delictual Behavior. Legal Science and Law Enforcement Practice. 2017;4:58-65. (In Russ.).

34. Stroeva O. A. Typological Properties of Legal Awareness. Juridical World. 2014;4:62-67. (In Russ.).

35. Zinchenko V. P. Consciousness and the Creative Act. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskikh kul’tur Publ.; 2010. 592 p. (In Russ.).

36. Revonsuo A. Psychology of Consciousness. St. Petersburg: Piter Publ.; 2013. 309 p. (In Russ.).

37. Davydov K. V. Discretion and Some Errors of the Legislator. Journal of the Administrative Proceedings. 2017;2:57-65. (In Russ.).

38. Alekseev N. N. General Doctrine of Law. Simferopol, 1919. 162 p. (In Russ.).

39. Smirnov D. A. About Concept of the Principles of the Right. Society and Law. 2012;4:29-37. (In Russ.).

40. Berestennikov A. G. Essence of Principles of Law: Theoretical Problems of Their Comprehension. Baikal Research Journal. 2016;7(3):25. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17150/2411-6262.2016.7(3).25 (In Russ.).

41. Vlasenko N. A. Competition of the Principles of Law. Juridical Techniques. 2020;14:46-53. (In Russ.).

42. Polyakov S. B. Legal and Real Principles of Law. Journal of Russian Law. 2018;9:17-28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12737/art_2018_9_2 (In Russ.).

43. Konovalov A. V. The Issue of the Concept of Principles of Law. Lex Russica. 2018;8:81-87. (In Russ.).

44. Shafirov V. M. The Principle of Law and Types of Legal Understanding. Juridical Techniques. 2020;14:355-359. (In Russ.).

45. Iliukhina V. A. Doctrinal Principles of Law: Concept and Specificity. Current Issues of the State and Law. 2021;5(17):9-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20310/2587-9340-2021-5-17-9-21 (In Russ.).

46. Gidlevsky A. V. Consciousness as Working Memory. Herald of Omsk University. 2015;2:95-96. (In Russ.).

47. Lenin V. I. Revolutionary Adventurism. In: Lenin V. I. Complete Works. Vol. 6. 5th ed. Moscow: State Publ. of Political Literature; 1963. P. 377–398. (In Russ.).