Retrospective Analysis of Scientific Works of E.M. Berendts and I.T. Tarasov in the Aspect of Definition of Subject Composition of Administrative Law of Administrative Law and Places of Entities in it
Лютиков П. С. Retrospective Analysis of Scientific Works of E.M. Berendts and I.T. Tarasov in the Aspect of Definition of Subject Composition of Administrative Law of Administrative Law and Places of Entities in it // Молодой ученый. 2013. №2. С. 251-253. URL https://moluch.ru/archive/49/6253/ (дата обращения: 18.02.2018).
Для формулировки верных и обоснованных научных выводов относительно современной системы субъектов административного права и места в ней юридических лиц, недостаточно обладать лишь соответствующими современными доктринальными достижениями, необходимо еще и хорошо ориентироваться в истории развития учений о субъектах административного права. Именно поэтому для выработки новых подходов к определению роли юридических лиц в публичной сфере необходим анализ историографии исследования вопросов субъектного состава административного права в отечественной доктрине сквозь призму развития и становления административно-правовой науки в целом, начиная с первого и заканчивая последним этапом. Условно процесс доктринального исследования субъектов административного права, в том числе и юридических лиц, можно разделить на несколько самостоятельных этапов, которые по временным рамкам соответствуют этапам развития и формирования современного предмета административного права. Поэтому логичным представляется начинать отсчет историографии исследования затронутой проблематики так называемого «дореволюционного периода» развития и становления административно-правовой науки (кон XIX в. — 1917 г.). Именно в этот период — период становления полицейского (позже административного) права на страницах юридической литературы — в монографиях, учебниках и курсах лекций по полицейскому праву, праву внутреннего управления появляются первые упоминания о юридическом лице как некой составляющей тех общественных отношений, которые относились к предмету исследования науки административного права того времени.
В связи с этим, целью статьи является анализ научных трудов посвященных административному и полицейском праву, в аспекте определения места и роли юридических лиц в системе субъектов административного права, тех ученых-юристов дореволюционной эпохи, которые существенным образом повлияли на развитие науки административного права — И. Т. Тарасова и Е. М. Берендтса.
Ключевые слова: анализ, ретроспектива, административное право, субъекты, юридичні особи.
To state the true and objective scientific findings on the subjects of the modern system of administrative law and its place in legal entities, not enough to have only relevant contemporary doctrinal developments must also navigate the history of the teachings on the subjects of administrative law. That is why the development of new approaches to the role of legal entities in the public sector needs analysis research questions of historiography of the subject composition of administrative law in the domestic doctrine in the light of the development and establishment of administrative and legal science in general, from the first to the last stage. Conditionally process doctrinal study subjects of administrative law, including legal entities, can be divided into several stages, which correspond to the time frame the stages of development and the formation of the modern subject of administrative law. Therefore logical to start counting historiography research issues affected the so-called «revolutionary period» in the development and establishment of the legal and administrative science (concentration in the XIX. — 1917.) It was during this period — the period of the police (and later administrative) law in the pages of law books — in the books, textbooks and lecture courses on police law, the right internal controls appear first mention of the legal entity as some part of the social relations that are relevant to the subject of research science of administrative law at the time.
Therefore, the aim of this paper is the analysis of scientific papers devoted to administrative and police regulations in terms of the place and role of legal entities in the system of administrative law subjects, those legal scholars of pre-revolutionary era, which have significantly influenced the development of the science of administrative law — I. T. Tarasov and EM Berendts.
Keywords: analysis, retrospective subject of administrative law, entities.
During the establishment of police (later on administrative) law on the pages of legal literature — in monographies, textbooks and lecture courses on police law and law of internal management emerged first mentions about legal entity as the special part of those community relations, which forms the subject of research of science of administrative law on that time. It should be stated that not in that historical period, no during the next period (till the 30th years of XX century) the term “subjects of administrative law” did not used in fact.
E. M. Berendts and his views on the system of subjects of administrative law
In particular, E. M. Berendts in his book “The experience of system of administrative law. Volume 1. Review of the history of administrative law and the history of its literature”, date 1898, noted that each state from the point of law is a legal person that is the subject of forced, permanent and peaceful dominion [1, p. 2]. That means that the scholar does not put questioned “organizational form” of the state, definitely considering it as a legal entity and determining it as the dominant subject of authority relationships. This conclusion follows from the assertions of E. M. Berendts that the objects of state dominion are: 1) subjected to state public-law unions (communities, provinces) which in turn based on state recognition or establishment by legal entities that have some degree of coercive power within this subordinate local union (city, village, township, county, province) under the control of state power. 2) various community associations, institutions or corporations, voluntarily created (with the permission of the government) by the individual persons given the common interests (economic, spiritual, moral or intellectual) (e.g. Joint stock companies, charitable institutions, scientific societies) activity of which settled by the rules of private and public law; 3) separate physical persons. Thus E. M. Berendts emphasized that all of these individuals and legal entities, as objects of public dominion, under certain conditions encouraged by state to participate in the execution of public tasks....Activities of state and designed by it legal and physical entities promoted to the implementation of public tasks — called management or administration [1, p. 2]. Activities of the government and called for participation public unions and individuals named management — is the basis of administrative law [1, p. 7]. Thus, utilizing modern legal terminology, the scholar considers the legal entities (both public and private), though under certain conditions, the subject of administrative-legal relations. In general, if we analysed proposed by E. M. Berendts the system of subjects of administrative law, which according to the scholar are also the object of authorities influence, we can conclude that the legal entity is the dominant member of these relationships, as it finds its expression in the face of the state as the subject of dominion, publicly operated public-legal organizations (communities, provinces), which could acquire the status of legal person, and in various public unions, institutions or corporations that are voluntary established by the individuals (joint stock companies, charities, scholar societies).
Opinions of I. T. Tarasov: generalized analysis
Especially worth mentioning the scientific work of I. T. Tarasov “Lectures on police (administrative) law” in 2 volumes, dated 1908. In this work, I. T. Tarasov drops his attention to “the internal bodies of the government”. In particular, according to the scientist, bodies of administration differs by purpose, area of action, the special properties of objects and their respective character given them power. The difference between the government authorities, self-government and “soedinstvo” is precisely the purpose of their creation. Between this bodies, the subject of internal government management distributed so, that the first one responsible for the nationwide subjects pursuing public policy goals and the second — local objects of management, pursuing local, federal interests, and other are concerned with the single objects, arising from the personal interests, of which the community unites people in a variety of unions in order to meet or protect these interests [2, p. 1–2]. As for the area, i.e. Territory of activity bodies of government administration divides into local and central. According to the special propreties of objects bodies of government administration are divided into general and specific [2, p. 2]. For given powers, the bodies of administration, in the broadest sense, is divided into legislative, executive, judicial and control [2, p. 3]. In the context of the issue, particular interest puts on such an institute as “soedinstvo”, released at that time, in fact, only by I. T. Tarasov. We should stay on it more detail. According to I. T. Tarasov, “soedinstvo, generally as a free association of individual persons to achieve by cumulative means a freely particular purpose, exists from the beginning of the world, appeared in the first conscious and appropriate forms of connection or communication [2, p. 34]. The scholar focuses on the fact that the russian term “soedinstvo” still have not receive universal acceptance, so some researches replace it with the term “union”, “personal union”, “association”, etc. [2, p. 34]. The word “soedinstvo” is a literal translation of the hugely successful German term Verein (Vereinigung — connection, Verein — “soedinstvo”) [2, p. 35]. Referring to the so-called “soedinstv” I. T. Tarasov attributed: corporations, associations, partnerships (commercial — in the modern sense, professional and public). Also important in the study of the matter raised is that I. T. Tarasov explicitly considered such entities as legal persons. In particular, he argued that “soedinstvo as a legal entity, has its internal and public law, exactly as its structure and management”. Domestic law concerns the process of establishment and founders, the constitution (constituent assembly), charter membership (membership required, conditions of entry and exit, the rights and obligations of members) and closing. Public law regulates the relations of the government towards the creation of “soedinstvo” and recognition over them rights of a legal entity and provisions of mandatory closure of “soedinstvo”. As for the attitude of the government to the creation of “soedinstvo”, there are two completely different systems: concession and attendance [2, с. 51–52].
So, actually I. T. Tarasov along with E. M. Berendts, considered legal entity as a dominant subject of administrative law in its modern sense, because it assigned a dedicated form — “soedinstvam”, along with the “internal governance bodies” leading role in the implementation of public administration. Along with that, I. T. Tarasov put attention to the serious impact of the private entities on the formation and dynamics of administrative relations, emphasizing their fairly active participation in these relations. Arguably, with some refinements that “soedinstva” of I. T. Tarasov, as a form of legal entities is the prototype of so-called collective subjects of administrative law which emerged in the legal literature of the Soviet period of administrative and legal sciences.
Berendts Je.M. Opyt sistemy administrativnogo prava T. 1 «Obzor istorii administrativnogo prava i istorii ego literatury». Vypusk № 1 / Je.M. Berendts. — Jaroslavl'.: Tipo-litografija, Je.G. Fal'ka, 1898. — 246 p.
Tarasov I. T. Lekcii po policejskomu (administrativnomu) pravu. T. 2 / I. T. Tarasov. — M.: Pechatnja A. I. Snegirevoj, 1908. — 266 p.