On the Credibility and Novelty of Some Results in Modern Research on the Development of Scientific Concepts of Administrative Discretion and Police Law

The issues of administrative discretion and the formation of contemporary Russian police law are far from new to the field of administrative law science. Nevertheless, they remain highly relevant today, as their thorough exploration supports the alignment of Russian state-legal institutions and practices with the standards of a lawful, democratic state. An analysis of publications on administrative discretion and police law, including those addressing the evolution of related scientific concepts, unfortunately reveals that many of these works contain judgments, assessments, and conclusions that lack scientific novelty, are unreliable, or even improperly borrowed from scholarly sources not belonging to the authors themselves. The purpose of this article – prompted by reading A. N. Zherebtsov's textbook “Essays on the History of Russian Administrative Law Science” (Moscow: Prospekt, 2021) – is to restore fairness in the evaluation of the development of scholarly ideas on administrative discretion and police law. The main focus is placed on visually demonstrating, first, the inaccuracy of Zherebtsov's assessments regarding pre-revolutionary and Soviet legal scholars' views on administrative discretion, and second, instances of improper appropriation by Professor K. S. Belsky. Based on the volume of his publications, Belsky appears to hold a leading position among those studying police law. The article highlights that some positions and conclusions originally formulated within post-Soviet administrative legal science – particularly by the present author – were inappropriately used in Belsky’s work, especially those concerning police law as a developing sub-branch of modern administrative law. The article concludes that administrative discretion and police law are among the highly specialized topics in contemporary Russian administrative legal scholarship. These topics are not easily accessible and require researchers to deeply immerse themselves in the legal subject matter and carefully study the historical development of related legal doctrines. Further productive research into administrative discretion will be possible only if scholars focus on developing principles for the exercise of discretionary powers by public administration, drafting legislative proposals based on those principles, and proposing legal measures to define the depth and scope of judicial review of such discretion. As for police law, the current stagnation in this area could be overcome by drafting a new codified federal legislative act – the Police Code of the Russian Federation or the Code of the Russian Federation on Security (the latter title currently appears more suitable). Bringing such a proposal into the practical legal sphere will undoubtedly stimulate renewed research interest in police law.

1. Beketov O. I., Vakutin A. A., Dizer O. A. Theoretical Foundations of the Formation of the Police Law Branch. Omsk: Omsk Academy of the Ministry of the Interior of Russia Publ.; 2019. 168 p. (In Russ.)

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

3. Korenev A. P. Administrative Law Norms and Their Application. Moscwo: Yuridicheskaya literatura Publ.; 1978. 142 p. (In Russ.)

4. Lunev A. E., Studenikin S. S., Yampolskaya Ts. A. Socialist Legality in Soviet State Administration. Moscow: Ministry of Justice of the USSR Legal Publishing House, 1948. 136 p. (In Russ.)

5. Lazarev B. M. Competence of Management Bodies. Moscow: Yuridicheskaya literatura Publ.; 1972. 280 p. (In Russ.)

6. Chechot D. M. Administrative Justice (Theoretical Issues). Leningrad: Leningrad University Publ.; 1973. 132 p. (In Russ.)

7. Manokhin V. M. Additions to the Structure of Administrative Law. Administrative Law and Procedure. 2013;11:3-8. (In Russ.)

8. Manokhin V. M. At School – in the Fight! Legal Notes. 2013;3:7-12. (In Russ.)

9. Manokhin V. M. The Rule-of-Law State and the Problem of Discretionary Governance. Soviet State and Law. 1990;1:23-30. (In Russ.)

10. Evtikhiev A. F. Discretion (das freie Ermessen) of the Administration. Journal of the Ministry of Justice. 1910;5:77-101. (In Russ.).

11. Korf S. A. Administrative Justice in Russia. Vol. 2. Book 2: An Overview of Current Legislation. Book 3. An Outline of the Theory of Administrative Justice. St. Petersburg: Printing House of Trenke and Fyusno; 1910. 507 p. (In Russ.)

12. Zorn P. Kritische Studien zur Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit. Vewaltungsarchiv. Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht und Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit. 1894;2:74-147. (In German.)

13. Lemayer K. F. Apologetische Studien zur Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit. Zeitschrift für das Privat- und öffentliche Recht der Gegenwart. 1895;22:353-488. (In German.)

14. Pache E. Tatbestandliche Abwägung und Beurteilungsspielraum. Zur Einheitlichkeit administrativer Entscheidungsfreiräume und zu deren Konsequenzen im verwaltungsgerichtlichen Verfahren – Versuch einer Modernisierung. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck Publ.; 2001. 562 S. (In German.)

15. Starilov Yu. N. Administrative Discretion: Not “One’s Own Opinion”, but a Legal Solution! Administrative Law and Procedure. 2024;12:3-13. https://doi.org/10.18572/2071-1166-2024-12-3-13 (In Russ.)

16. Nilova Yu. M. On the Question of the Court’s Assessment of a Discretionary Administrative Act for the Subject of Appropriateness and Efficiency. Arbitrazhnye spory. 2024;4:8. Available at: https://arbspor.ru/articles/2449/ (accessed: 20.01.2025). (In Russ.)

17. Zagryatskov M. D. Administrative Justice and the Right to Appeal in Theory and Legislation (Development of the Idea and Principles of Administrative Justice; Administrative Procedure and the Right to Appeal in Soviet Legislation; Administrative-Financial Orders and Financial Appeals). 2nd ed. Moscow: Pravo i zhizn’ Publ.; 1925. 244 p. (In Russ.) 18. Bel’skii K. S. Phenomenology of Administrative Law. Smolensk: Smolensk State University Publ.; 1995. 144 p. (In Russ.)

18. Bel’skii K. S. On the Subject of Administrative Law. State and Law. 1997;11:14-21. (In Russ.)

19. Bel’skii K. S. On the System of Administrative Law. State and Law. 1998;3:5-11. (In Russ.)

20. Bel’skii K. S., Eliseev B. P., Kucherov I. I. Police Law as a Subdiscipline of Administrative Law. State and Law. 2001;12:45-53. (In Russ.)

21. Bel’skii K. S. Propaedeutics of Administrative Law. The Best Works. Vol. 1. Moscow: Russian State University of Justice Publ.; 2020. 408 p. (In Russ.)

22. Razinov Yu. A. Lie by Omission and Ability to Control Speech. Vestnik Samara State Universitety. 2013;8/1:140-144. (In Russ.)

23. Bel’skii K. S. Administrative and Financial Law in Portrait Sketches. Penza: Sotsiosfera Publ.; 2021. 457 p. (In Russ.)

24. Futo S. R., Chernikov V. V. The Federal Law “On Police”: History of Drafting and Adoption. Moscow: Prospekt Publ.; 2021. 200 p. (In Russ.)

25. Starilov Yu. N. On Police Law, or The Old Is Not Always a Well-Forgotten New. Politseiskoe pravo. 2005;1:12-19. (In Russ.)

26. Beketov O. I., Oparin V. N. The Use of Police Force Under the Legislation of the Russian Federation. Omsk: Omsk Academy of the Ministry of the Interior of Russia Publ.; 2001. 164 p. (In Russ.)