Administrative Tort: an Impostor or an Established Legal Phenomenon?
https://doi.org/10.19073/2658-7602-2020-17-2-262-272
Abstract
The use of the term “administrative tort” in administrative law and its extension to the range of relations regulated by administrative law causes misunderstandings among civil law theorists and some representatives of administrative law science. In connection with the next administrative reform and the reform of administrative legislation, a new discussion arose about the legality of the use of the term “administrative tort” in the theory of administrative law and law enforcement practice. Accepting this scientific challenge, the Author delves into the essential content of the term “tort”, compares it with the concepts of obligation, duty, harm, liability, and others, and gives the Author's definition of “obligation”. The conclusions are based on the works of legal theorists, civil and administrative law, and developers of the science “administrative tortology”.
Keywords
tort,
civil law,
administrative law,
obligation,
contract,
relationship,
harm,
public and private law,
offense,
liability
About the Author
M. N. Kobzar-Frolova
Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Kobzar-Frolova Margarita N., Chief Researcher of the Sector of Administrative Law and Administrative Process, Doctor of Legal Sciences, Professor
10 Znamenka st., Moscow, 119991
References
1. Shergin A. P. (Ed.). Administrativno-deliktnoe pravo i zakonodatel’stvo (stat’i, vystupleniya, razmyshleniya) [AdministrativeTort Law and Legislation (Articles, Speeches, Reflections)]. Moscow, All-Russian Research Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia Publ., 2015. 283 p.
2. Bakhrakh D. N. Administrativnoe pravo Rossii [Administrative Law of Russia]. Moscow, 2000. 640 p.
3. Bratus’ S. N. Yuridicheskaya otvetstvennost’ i zakonnost’ (ocherk teorii) [Legal Responsibility and Legality (Essay Theory)]. Moscow, Yuridicheskaya Literatura Publ., 1976. 216 p.
4. Gazieva I. A. Latyn’ i rimskoe pravo [Latin and Roman Law]. Moscow, 2004. 334 p.
5. Gai Yu. Institutsii. Kniga 2: Pamyatniki rimskogo prava [Institutions. Book 2: Monuments of Roman Law]. Moscow, 1997. 368 p.
6. Genzyuk E. E. Administrativnaya deliktologiya. Dis. d-ra yurid. nauk [Administrative Tortology. Dr. Legal Sci. Dis.]. Moscow, 2001. 324 p.
7. Denisenko V. V. Deliktologiya: predmet, metod i sistema nauki [Tortology: Subject, Method and System of Science]. Rostovon-Don, 2001. 71 p.
8. Deryuga A. N. Aktual’nye voprosy razvitiya nauki administrativnoi deliktologii. Dis. kand. yurid. nauk [Topical Issues of Administrative Science Tortology. Cand. Legal Sci. Dis.]. Khabarovsk, 2002. 181 s.
9. Dodin E. V. Administrativnaya deliktologiya v sisteme yuridicheskikh nauk [Administrative Tortology in the System of Legal Sciences]. Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo – Soviet State and Law, 1991, no. 12, pp. 32–36.
10. Dontsov S. E., Glyantsev V. V. Vozmeshchenie vreda po sovetskomu zakonodatel’stvu [Compensation for Harm Under Soviet Law]. Moscow, 1990. 272 p.
11. Ioffe O. S. Otvetstvennost’ po sovetskomu grazhdanskomu pravu [Responsibility Under Soviet Civil Law]. Leningrad, 1955. 310 p.
12. Kirin A. V. Teoriya administrativno-deliktnogo prava. Dis. d-ra yurid. nauk [Theory of Administrative-Tort Law. Dr. Legal Sci. Dis.]. Moscow, 2012. 398 s.
13. Kobzar’-Frolova M. N. Metody administrativnogo prava [Methods of Administrative Law]. Aktual’nye problemy i perspektivy razvitiya administrativnogo prava i protsessa – Actual Problems and Prospects for the Development of Administrative Law and Process. Moscow, 2019, pp. 73–83.
14. Kobzar’-Frolova M. N. Teoretiko-pravovye i prikladnye osnovy nalogovoi deliktologii. Dis. d-ra yurid. nauk [Theoretical, Legal and Applied Foundations of Tax Tortology. Dr. Legal Sci. Dis.]. Moscow, 2011. 486 p.
15. Koval’ L. V. Administrativno-deliktnoe otnoshenie [Administrative Tort Relation]. Kyiv, 1979. 255 p.
16. Kozlov Yu. M. Administrativnoe pravo [Administrative Law]. Moscow, 1999. 320 p.
17. Krasavchikov O. A. Yuridicheskie fakty v sovetskom grazhdanskom prave [Legal Facts in Soviet Civil Law]. Moscow, 1958. 183 p.
18. Malein N. S. Imushchestvennaya otvetstvennost’ v khozyaistvennykh otnosheniyakh [Property Liability in Economic Relations]. Moscow, 1968. 207 p.
19. Matveev G. K. Vina v sovetskom grazhdanskom prave [Guilt in Soviet Civil Law]. Kyiv, 1955. 307 p.
20. Matveev G. K. Osnovaniya grazhdansko-pravovoi otvetstvennosti [Grounds for Civil Liability]. Moscow, 1970. 309 p.
21. Mozolin V. P., Maslyaev A. I. Grazhdanskoe pravo. Ch. 1 [Civil Law. Pt. 1]. Moscow, 2005. 719 p.
22. Myshlyaev N. P. Teoreticheskie i prikladnye osnovy administrativnoi deliktologii. Dis. d-ra yurid. nauk [Theoretical and Applied Bases of Administrative Tortology. Dr. Legal Sci. Dis.]. Moscow, 2004. 330 p.
23. Nikulin M. I. Problemy nauki administrativnoi deliktologii. Dis. d-ra yurid. nauk [Problems of the Science of Administrative Tortology. Dr. Legal Sci. Dis.]. Moscow, 2005. 461 p.
24. Dugenets S. N. (Ed.). Problemy protivodeistviya administrativnoi deliktnosti [Problems of Counteracting Administrative Tort]. Moscow, 2010. 388 p.
25. Remnev V. I. Aktual’nye voprosy administrativnoi deliktologii v sovremennyi period [Topical Issues of Administrative Tortology in the Modern Period]. Aktual’nye problemy administrativnoi deliktologii – Actual Problems of Administrative Delictology. Kyiv, 1984, pp. 3–16.
26. Remnev V. I. Aktual’nye problemy administrativnoi deliktologii [Actual Problems of Administrative Tortology]. Kyiv, 1984. 182 p.
27. Orzikh M. F., Kharitonov E. O., Brovchenko N. A. [Review]. Izvestiya vysshikh uchebnykh zavedenii. Pravovedenie – News of Higher Educational Institutions. Jurisprudence, 1984, no. 2, pp. 103–104.
28. Serebrovskii V. I. Obyazatel’stva, voznikayushchie iz prichineniya vreda [Obligations Arising From Harm]. Sovetskoe grazhdanskoe pravo – Soviet Civil Law. Moscow, 1950, pp. 521.
29. Smirnov V. T., Sobchak A. A. Obshchee uchenie o deliktnykh obyazatel’stvakh v sovetskom grazhdanskom prave [General Doctrine of Tort Obligations in Soviet Civil Law]. Leningrad, 1983. 152 p.
30. Tagantsev N. S. Russkoe ugolovnoe pravo. T. I [Russian Criminal Law. Vol. I]. St. Petersburg, 1902. 419 p.
31. Fleishits E. A. Obyazatel’stva iz prichineniya vreda i iz neosnovatel’nogo obogashcheniya [Obligations from Harm and Unjust Enrichment]. Moscow, 1951. 239 p.
32. Shergin A. P. Osnovnye instituty administrativno-deliktnogo prava [The Main Institutes of Administrative-Tort Law]. M., 1999. 96 p.
33. Shershenevich G. F. Ocherki po istorii kodifikatsii grazhdanskogo prava [Essays on the History of Codification of Civil Law]. Kazan, 1899. 14 p.
34. Yaichkov K. K. Sistema obyazatel’stv iz prichineniya vreda v sovetskom grazhdanskom prave [The System of Obligations from Harm in Soviet Civil Law]. Voprosy grazhdanskogo prava – Issues of Civil Law. Moscow, 1957, pp. 145–200.
35. Bierling E. Juristische Principienlehre. Vol. IV. Freiburg, Leipzig, 1911.
Review
For citations:
Kobzar-Frolova M.N. Administrative Tort: an Impostor or an Established Legal Phenomenon? Siberian Law Review. 2020;17(2):262-272. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.19073/2658-7602-2020-17-2-262-272
Views:
357
Email this article 