Public control in the CIS member states: main problems and development prospects

Cheshin Andrei Vladimirovich ORCID: 0009-0000-7572-3076 PhD in Economics Associate Professor of the Department of Economics and Management at the Orsk Institute of Humanities and Technology (branch) of the Orenburg State University 15A Mira Street, Orsk, Orenburg Region, 462419, Russia niipgergo2009@mail.ru Other publications by this author     Goncharov Vitalii Viktorovich PhD in Law Associate Professor; Department of Civil Procedure and International Law; Kuban State University 350040, Russia, Krasnodar Territory, Krasnodar, Stavropol str., 149 niipgergo2009@mail.ru Other publications by this author     Petrenko Elena Gennad'evna PhD in Law Associate Professor; Department of State and International Law, Kuban State Agrarian University named after I. T. Trubilin 350044, Russia, Krasnodar Territory, Krasnodar, Kalinina str., 13 niipgergo2009@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Malinovskii Oleg Nikolaevich ORCID: 0000-0001-6541-9046 PhD in Law Associate Professor; Department of Civil Procedure and International Law; Kuban State University Head of the Department; Kuban State University 350040, Russia, Krasnodar Territory, Krasnodar, Stavropol str., 149 niipgergo2009@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction.

Modern problems and prospects of the organization and functioning of the institute of public control in the member countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (hereinafter also referred to as the CIS) are widely studied in the works of E. G. Petrenko ^{[1, pp. 3454-3463; 7, pp. 76-79]} E. B. Burizoda, ^{[3, pp. 104-110]} V. N. Vyunov, ^[4] A. A. Borisova, ^{[8, pp. 78-91]} K. T. Zhunuspaeva, ^{[9, pp. 27-31]} M. N. Zoirova, ^{[11, pp. 144-148]} P. A. Koryagina, ^{[12, pp. 56-62]} E. D. Kuleshova, ^{[15, pp. 86-89]} V. M. Redkous, ^{[16, pp. 93-95]} as well as a number of other authors. Issues of international cooperation of subjects of public control (subjects of civil society) both independently (through the creation of international associations and unions of subjects of public control and subjects of civil society) and through the mediation of public authorities of national states are analyzed in detail in the works of E. V. Berdnikova, ^{[2, pp. 6-9]} V. V. Goncharov, ^{[5, pp. 94-99; 6, pp. 80-91]} T. D. Zavialova, ^{[10, pp. 111-121]} O. V. Nezhenets, ^{[13, pp. 230-235]} V. M. Palchenkova, ^{[14, pp. 51-56]} as well as some other scientists. However, the proportion of works devoted to comparative legal research of the main problems and prospects for the development of the institute of public control in the CIS member countries seems to be insufficient (especially due to the fact that in recent years this institution of civil society has been given a new lease of life). This circumstance determines the choice of the topic of this scientific research, the purpose of which is not only to identify and analyze the main problems related to the organization and implementation of the institute of public control in the CIS member countries, but also to develop and justify a system of measures to resolve these problems based on the CIS as an international governmental organization. Achieving this goal is possible by solving a number of research tasks, including the following: a) substantiating the importance of the institution of public control both for the preservation and development of the state and society in the CIS member states, and for giving a new impetus to the development of the CIS itself; b) identifying and analyzing the main problems that hinder development of the institute of public control in key CIS member countries (the Russian Federation, the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and the Republic of Uzbekistan); c) development and justification of a system of measures to resolve these problems.

Research methods and methodology. The empirical basis of the research.

The work uses a number of scientific research methods, in particular: formal-logical; comparative-legal; historical-legal; statistical; sociological; method of analyzing specific legal situations. The empirical basis of the study was, on the one hand, the norms of national legislation on public control of the CIS member states, on the other hand, the international legal acts of the CIS in this area. In addition, the empirical basis of the research is documents related to the practical activities of subjects of public control in the CIS member countries, materials of the scientific and legal doctrine of public control.

The main text.

The CIS member states have consolidated in their constitutions and legislation the provisions that they are democratic, social, legal states with a republican form of government. It is noted that a person, his rights and freedoms are the most important values in the state. The goals of the realization, protection and protection of human rights and freedoms, in fact, are subordinated to the activities of the entire system of public authorities in the CIS member countries.

However, these constitutional principles of democracy and public participation in the management of state affairs need a system of legal guarantees, without which, on the one hand, they will not be implemented, and on the other hand, the risk of usurpation of power in the hands of a narrow group of people whose interests do not coincide with the interests of the majority of the population increases.

The most important type of these legal guarantees is the institution of public control, through which citizens of the CIS member states (independently or as part of public associations) can control the activities of public authorities and other bodies and organizations authorized to exercise certain public powers.

Why is this institution of civil society so attractive in the CIS member states?

Firstly, all these states are republics of the former USSR, during the period of its existence the institute of national control of power functioned, from which the processes of creation and activity of subjects of public control of power in the CIS member states of modern times originate.

Secondly, in the process of building a system of legislation, the CIS member countries relied and rely on the experience of the USSR and the Russian Federation, which determines the similarity of their legal systems (including in terms of regulating the institution of public control).

Thirdly, the population of the CIS member countries is distinguished by the similarity of legal worldview, legal culture and legal identity.

However, the processes of organization and functioning of public control in the CIS member countries are fraught with numerous problems.

Within the framework of this study, we will try to identify the main problems that hinder the organization and functioning of public control in key CIS member countries (the Republic of Belarus, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Republic of Uzbekistan, and the Kyrgyz Republic).

The organization and implementation of public control in the Republic of Belarus are associated with a number of important problems, including the following:

Firstly, this institution of civil society is not mentioned or detailed in the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus.

Secondly, there is no separate Law on public control in the Republic of Belarus.

Thirdly, although the term "public control" is actively used in legal terminology in the Republic of Belarus, there is no single approach in the legislation to define this concept.

Fourthly, although this term is provided for in certain general laws, for example, in the Law of the Republic of Belarus dated July 18, 2011 No. 300-Z "On appeals from citizens and legal entities", it is actively mentioned in certain sectoral laws, for example, in the Law of the Republic of Belarus "On Healthcare", however, it is not reflected in all branches of the legislation of the Republic of Belarus.

Fifth, the institution of public control was actively envisaged in acts of the head of state, for example, in the Directive of the President of the Republic of Belarus dated December 27, 2006 No. 2 "On de-bureaucratization of the state apparatus and improving the quality of life support for the population", Decree of the President of the Republic of Belarus dated 10/15/2007 No. 498 "On additional measures to deal with appeals from citizens and legal entities", but there is no single act of the head of state on this issue.

Sixth, public control is actively mentioned in regulatory legal acts of the Government of the Republic of Belarus, for example, in Resolution No. 285 of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus dated 16.03.2005 "On certain issues of organizing work with the book of Comments and suggestions and amendments and additions to certain resolutions of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus", but there is also no single separate regulatory-a legal act of this level on the issue of public control.

Seventh, the institute of public control is detailed in certain sectoral regulations, for example, the Order of the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Belarus No. 1469 dated December 20, 2017 "On cooperation with medical and pharmaceutical public associations", but is not reflected in all sectors, and there is no unification and universalization in the implementation of this institution of civil society in the the specified level of the legal system.

Eighth, the possibility of organizing and implementing public control measures is actively provided for in the charters of public associations in the Republic of Belarus, for example, medical ones. They separately highlight the function of these associations in terms of organizing and conducting public control activities in specific areas, but not in all.

Ninth, public control in the form of trade unions is well developed in Belarus (where it is both a thematic and a general event), but the legislation on trade unions does not detail the powers and does not describe the principles, forms, methods, types of general control measures (not strictly related to the protection of labor rights and legitimate interests of workers).

Eleventh, in Belarus there is a "competitor" to subjects of public control in the face of state control bodies consolidated into a single system, which weakens the influence of this institution of civil society in the eyes of the population.

Twelfth, the Republic of Belarus has a weak material base for subjects of public control (with the possible exception of the system of trade union organizations).

Thirteenth, modern digital technologies are poorly used in Belarus when organizing and conducting public control events.

Fourteenth, in the Republic of Belarus, criminal and administrative legislation does not provide for special legal structures providing for the responsibility of perpetrators for countering the legitimate activities of subjects of public control.

Fifthly, in Belarus, the subjects of public control have weak real powers (compared to the state control bodies of the Republic of Belarus and the people's control bodies of the BSSR in Soviet times).

The organization and implementation of public control in the Russian Federation are also associated with a number of important problems, including the following:

Firstly, this institution of civil society is not mentioned in the country's Constitution.

Secondly, although Russia has a separate Federal Law dated July 21, 2014 No. 212-FZ "On the Basics of Public Control in the Russian Federation," it removes a huge number of objects from the scope of this Federal Law (Article 2) under the pretext of adopting separate federal laws on them (most of which have not been adopted today day).

Thirdly, Russia does not have unified regional legislation in individual regions of the Russian Federation.

Fourthly, not all municipalities in the Russian Federation have established municipal public chambers and councils (this is especially true for the "new" subjects of the Russian Federation – the Zaporizhia region, the Kherson region, the LPR, the DPR).

Fifth, subjects of public control in Russia have a weak material base.

Sixth, these entities make little use of modern digital technologies in their activities.

Seventh, Russia does not provide for additional liability measures (criminal and administrative) for countering the legitimate activities of subjects of public control.

Eighth, in the Russian Federation, the real powers of subjects of public control are weak (compared with the powers of the people's control bodies of the RSFSR in Soviet times).

Tenth, positive foreign and Soviet experience in the organization and functioning of institutions of public control (control of subjects of civil society) is poorly used in Russia.

The organization and implementation of public control in the Republic of Kazakhstan are also associated with a number of important problems, including the following:

Firstly, this institution of civil society is not mentioned in the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Secondly, although Kazakhstan has the "youngest" Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the territory of the CIS dated 02.10.2023 No. 30-VIII SAM "On public control", however, the actual practice of its use has not yet been developed (therefore, the degree of its effectiveness is not clear).

Thirdly, in the Republic of Kazakhstan, the legislation on public control explicitly removes representative (legislative) and judicial authorities from the category of objects of public control, as well as state bodies and state organizations classified as special regime facilities (that is, there is an incomplete coverage of public control by authorities and other bodies and organizations implementing separate public powers).

Fourthly, entire areas of public relations (for example, elections and referendums) are excluded from the category of objects of public control regulated by the aforementioned Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

Fifth, Kazakhstan traditionally has a weak material base for subjects of public control.

Sixth, they make little use of modern digital technologies (including artificial intelligence technologies).

Seventh, in Kazakhstan there is no responsibility (criminal and administrative) for countering the legitimate activities of subjects of public control (it is not highlighted separately in articles of criminal and administrative legislation).

Eighth, the Republic of Kazakhstan has weak real powers of subjects (compared to the people's control bodies of the Kazakh SSR in Soviet times).

Ninth, the positive foreign and Soviet experience is poorly used in the country.

The organization and implementation of public control in the Republic of Uzbekistan are also associated with a number of important problems, including the following:

Firstly, this public and legal institution is not detailed in the Constitution of the Republic of Uzbekistan.

Secondly, although the country has the Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan dated 04/12/2018 No. ZRU-474 "On public control" (one of the youngest in the CIS), the practice of its application is still poorly developed.

Thirdly, a number of objects are removed from the subject matter of this Law in article 2 (in particular, the exercise of public control in the field of preparation and conduct of referendums, elections, as well as defense, public security and law and order, operational investigative activities, inquiry, preliminary investigation, judicial proceedings, execution of punishments is regulated by separate legislative acts).

Fourthly, in our opinion, article 3 of this Law artificially restricts the composition of subjects of public control (citizens, citizens' self-governing bodies, as well as non-governmental non-profit organizations, mass media registered in accordance with the procedure established by law).

Fifthly, article 4 artificially restricts the object composition of public control. On the one hand, it affects only the activities of state bodies and their officials (and not any bodies and organizations exercising public authority), and on the other hand, not all activities, but only some of its varieties, directly specified in this article. article of the Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan (in particular, on taking into account public interests and public opinion in adopted normative legal acts, decisions, as well as in state, sectoral and territorial development programs; on ensuring compliance with legislative requirements in the field of protecting the rights and legitimate interests of citizens, legal entities, and the interests of society; on fulfilling their responsibilities tasks and functions affecting social and public interests; provision of public services; implementation of agreements, contracts, projects and programs implemented within the framework of social partnership).

Sixth, in Uzbekistan, subjects of public control have the weakest material base among the CIS member states (the situation is similar only in Tajikistan).

Seventh, modern digital technologies are poorly used by subjects of public control in the country.

Eighth, Uzbekistan does not provide for criminal and administrative liability for countering the legitimate activities of subjects of public control.

Ninth, the real powers of the subjects are weak in the country (compared to the people's control bodies of the Uzbek SSR in Soviet times).

Tenth, Uzbekistan makes little use of the positive foreign and Soviet experience in the organization and functioning of subjects of public control (subjects of popular control of government, subjects of civil society.

The organization and implementation of public control in the Kyrgyz Republic are also associated with a number of important problems, including the following:

Firstly, the institution of public control is not mentioned in the Constitution of Kyrgyzstan.

Secondly, the country does not have a separate unified law on public control in the Republic, although certain forms and types of public control measures were provided for by separate laws of the Republic, in particular, the Law of the Kyrgyz Republic dated 07/24/2009 No. 248 "On Public Health".

Thirdly, in Kyrgyzstan there is no unified approach to defining the concept of public control, its principles, methods, forms and types of activities, grounds and limits of application, there is no understanding of a single list of objects and subjects.

Fourth, the national legal doctrine of public control is poorly developed in the country.

Fifth, in Kyrgyzstan, subjects of public control have a weak material base.

Sixth, they make little use of modern digital technologies in organizing and conducting control activities.

Seventh, the country does not provide for criminal and administrative liability for countering the legitimate activities of subjects of public control.

Eighth, Kyrgyzstan has weak real powers of subjects (compared to the people's control bodies of the Kyrgyz SSR in Soviet times).

Ninth, in the country. The positive foreign and Soviet experience is poorly used.

What are the main prospects for the development of public control in the CIS countries through the prism of solving the above-mentioned problems that hinder the successful organization and functioning of this socio-legal institution?

First, it is necessary to develop and adopt at the CIS level a single regulatory legal act on the legal foundations of public control in the CIS, for example, in the form of an Agreement "On the main areas of cooperation between the CIS member states in the field of the development of the institute of public control." This Agreement should define the need for: a) consolidation of this institution in national constitutions; b) adoption of national laws on public control; c) creation and development of international unions and associations of subjects of public control of the CIS member states (in particular, Associations of subjects of Public control of the CIS member states); d) consolidation in the national legislation of the CIS member states. criminal and administrative procedure legislation of the system of measures of legal responsibility for countering the legitimate activities of subjects of public control; e) recommendations to the CIS member states to give subjects of public control a certain minimum amount of authority in national legislation.

Secondly, at the CIS level, it is necessary to develop a model national law "On the basics of public control", which will allow, on the one hand, the CIS member countries with more modest capabilities in the field of legal technology to adopt a single detailed regulatory legal act in the field of public control, and on the other hand, to unify and universalize legislation on public control throughout the CIS.

Thirdly, it is necessary to develop at the CIS level a system of programs for the logistical, organizational and legal development of this institution in the CIS member countries. Thus, relying on the organizational, legal and logistical assistance of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Kazakhstan (as the leaders of the CIS locomotives), the remaining CIS member countries will be able to develop this institution of civil society by leaps and bounds.

Fourthly, it is necessary to analyze the practice of organizing and functioning of this institution of civil society in the CIS member states in order to identify the most effective and efficient forms, as well as methods and types of public control measures, in order to adapt and implement them in all CIS member states. The Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation (as the most numerous subject of public control at the national level among the CIS member states), as well as international unions and associations of subjects of public control within the CIS (including promising ones that have yet to be created) should be involved in this process.

Fifth, it is necessary to analyze the practice of organizing and functioning the institute of people's control of power in the USSR, as well as in the republics that were part of the USSR, in order to identify the most effective and efficient forms, as well as methods and types of measures of people's control of power, with a view to their adaptation and implementation in all CIS member countries. The Civic Chamber of the Russian Federation (as the most numerous subject of public control at the national level among the CIS member states), as well as the aforementioned international unions and associations of subjects of public control within the CIS, should be involved in this process.

Sixth, it is necessary to intensify the processes of cooperation between subjects of public control in the CIS member states and international subjects of public control (subjects of civil society), in particular, with international associations and unions of subjects of public control (subjects of civil society).

Conclusion.

In the course of our scientific research, we have drawn a number of conclusions, including the following:

1. The Institute of Public Control in the CIS member states acts, on the one hand, as the most important legal guarantee for the implementation, protection and protection of the constitutional principles of democracy and public participation in the management of state affairs, and on the other hand, as a key institution of civil society.

2. The organization and implementation of the institute of public control in the CIS member countries are fraught with numerous problems, the most typical of which are: a) the lack of consolidation of this institution of civil society in the constitutions of the CIS member states; b) the removal of a number of public authorities and types of public relations from the jurisdiction of subjects of public control; c) their weak material and technical base; d) their insufficient powers; weak use of positive foreign and Soviet experience in the functioning of civil society institutions in this area; e) the lack of specialized structures in criminal and administrative legislation that make it possible to bring to justice persons who impede the legitimate activities of representatives of subjects of public control; f) a low level of detail in the forms, methods, principles, and types of public control measures, depending on the areas of implementation.

3. The resolution of these problems will require the development and implementation at the CIS level and at the level of nation-States system of events, among which are the following: a) the adoption of the CIS international legal instrument on the legal bases of public control in the CIS, for example, in the form of the Agreement "On the main directions of cooperation of the countries-participants of the CIS in the development of the institution of social control"; b) the adoption of the CIS model national law "About bases of social control" (which countries with insufficiently high level of legal technology can be used as a basis for the development and adoption of national laws on public control); C) the adoption of the CIS system programs logistical and legal development of this institution in the member countries of the CIS (with the financing of these programs from the collections of the CIS, or by providing subsidies to recipient countries from donor countries in the CIS); g) the analysis of practice of the organization and functioning of the institution of civil society in the countries-participants of the CIS to identify the most efficient and effective forms, methods and activities of social control, with a view to their adaptation and implementation in all the countries-participants of the CIS; d) analyzing the accounting practices of the Soviet period, the operation of the Institute of national control authorities in the Soviet Union (and its Union republics), and positive practice of the organization and functioning of the control of civil society in the countries of the far abroad (with the aim of identifying the most efficient and effective forms, methods and types of activities with further adaptation and implementation in all the countries-participants of the CIS); e) strengthening of cooperation of subjects of public control of the countries-participants of the CIS international subjects of public control (civil society).