Public-Private Partnership in the sphere of control and coercion – a new element of the state mechanism
// Administrative and municipal law. – 2017. – № 4.
– P. 47-58.
Read the article
Abstract: The research subject is the impact of new directions of public-private partnership, forming in the sphere of state control and coercion, on the state mechanism. The author studies the works of legal scholars for the last several years, dealing with various aspects of private organizations’ performance of functions of control, supervision and coercion. The author shows that the problem of the role of public-private partnerships in the state mechanism hasn’t been studied so far comprehensively enough; at the same time, traditional approaches to defining the state mechanism prevail in the scientific literature; they don’t provide for the opportunity of partial delegation of functions of control, supervision and coercion, performed by public authorities, to the entities without this status. The research methodology is based on the works of S.S. Alekseev, D.N. Bakhrakh, P.V. Demidov, V.V. Zakharenkov, A.B. Zolotareva, A.E. Ziat’kov, A.D. Kerimov, Ya.S. Kleimenov, V.V. Lazarev, S.V. Lipenia, D.A. Limareva, M.M. Magomedrasulov, N.I. Matuzov, A.V. Mal’ko, A.N. Pigolkin, and others. The author concludes that the state mechanism is being transformed at the present time; it’s been extending, and now it includes new social relations, which haven’t been typical for it previously. Since the problem of the state mechanism extension hasn’t been studied by Russian legal science comprehensively enough, the possible risks of delegation of functions of control, supervision and coercion to private entities haven’t been estimated either. At the same time, in practice, the legislation, regulating the issues of control and supervision, has been including new elements, which can be considered as the examples of delegation of some functions, which have been traditionally performed by public authorities, to private entities: from the development of the rules for some markets and quasi-licensing, to the creation of opportunities of agreements between self-regulatory organizations and public oversight authorities on the basis of which public authorities reduce the general number of inspections of the self-regulating organizations’ members, or completely refuse of scheduled inspections, and reserve only the right to organize unscheduled inspections.
Keywords: control authority, state functions, state coercion, self-regulatory organizations, delegation, private companies, state mechanism, state control, public authority, development institutions
Criminal Justice Act 1991. Part IV. Section 84//http://hansard.millbankystems.com/lords/1992/jul/07/criminal-justice-act-1991-contracted-out
Iversen V., Fjeldstad Od.-H., Bahhgwa G., Ellis F., James R. Private Tax Collection—Remnant of the Past or a Way Forward? Evidence from Rural Uganda. // Public Administration and Development. – 26. – 2006. – P. 317-328.
Nossal K., Phillip Wood. The Raggedness of Prisons Privatization: Australia, Britain. Canada and New Zealand and the United States compared. Paper presented for the Prisons 2004 Conference on Prisons and Penal Policy: International Perspectives. City University, London. 23-24 June 2004;
Pozen D. Managing a Correctional Marketplace: Prison Privatisation in the United States and the Unated Kingdom/Journal of Law and Politics. 2003. Vol. XIX. No. 253-282.
Privatizing Prisons: moral case, by Professor Charles H Logan.26 Nov.1987. ASI (Reseach), LTD. London SWIP P 2.
Alekseev S.S. Obshchaya teoriya prava: uchebnik / Sergey Sergeevich Alekseev. 2-e izd.