The restrictive function of legal responsibility and the limits of its action through the prism of proportionality principle
- Authors: Kushnir I.V.1
-
Affiliations:
- Saratov State Law Academy
- Issue: Vol 5, No 19 (2021)
- Pages: 400-411
- Section: General Theory and History of Law and the State
- URL: https://journal-vniispk.ru/2587-9340/article/view/303883
- ID: 303883
Cite item
Full Text
Abstract
We draw attention to the problem of excessive restriction risk of human and civil rights and freedoms in the process of establishing and applying the institution of legal responsibility by the state. We consider general theoretical issues of the concept and functions of legal responsibility. We substantiate the position on the need to separate the restrictive function from legal liability. As an intersectoral institution of Russian legislation, legal responsibility is characterized by the performance of the following functions: restrictive, preventive, guaranteeing, restorative and educational. We draw attention to the issues of legal liability proportionality in relation to its restrictive function. We disclose the content of proportionality principle in relation to legal responsibility as an intersectoral institution of legislation. We imagine that the remedy actively used in the legal policy of the state in the form of legal punishment and legal responsibility in general should correspond to the maximum extent to proportionality principle in order to prevent arbitrary and excessive restriction of rights and freedoms. Various kinds of deviations, deviations from the principle of proportionality of legal responsibility are supposed to be interpreted in theory as one of the most important prerequisites for the formation of dysfunction and imbalance of the institution in question. Violation of proportionality principle of responsibility in law is proposed to be interpreted as its dysfunction.
About the authors
Irina V. Kushnir
Saratov State Law Academy
Author for correspondence.
Email: irinavkushnir@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6268-3482
Senior Lecturer of Theory of State and Law Department
Russian Federation, 1 Volskaya St., Saratov 410056, Russian FederationReferences
- Vlasenko N.A. Problema dostatochnosti i agressivnosti pravovogo regulirovaniya [Prob-lems of sufficiency of legal regulation in the modern Russian society]. Vestnik Nizhego-rodskoy akademii MVD Rossii – Journal of Nizhny Novgorod Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 2018, no. 1 (41), pp. 41-47. (In Russian).
- Gadzhiyeva M.G., Pirbudagova D.S. Ogranicheniya prav i svobod cheloveka i grazh-danina: realizatsiya printsipa sorazmernosti pri ogranichenii prav i svobod [Restrictions on the rights and freedoms of man and citizen: implementation of the principle of pro-portionality while restricting rights and freedoms]. Evraziyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal – Eurasian Law Journal, 2020, no. 4 (143), pp. 202-204. (In Russian).
- Zelenin S.R. Kriteriyem spravedlivosti vsegda byla i ostayetsya sorazmernost’ nakazaniya sodeyannomu [The criterion of justice has always been and remains the proportionality of punishment for the deed]. Sud’ya [Judge], 2020, no. 8 (116), pp. 4-9. (In Russian).
- Labutin M.A. Printsip sorazmernosti ogranicheniya izbiratel’nykh prav osuzhdennykh k li-sheniyu svobody: mezhdunarodnoye pravo i rossiyskoye zakonodatel’stvo [Principle of proportibility of restriction of electoral rights sentenced to detention of freedom: interna-tional law and Russian legislation]. Voprosy rossiyskoy yustitsii [Russian Justice Issues], 2020, no. 7, pp. 203-214. (In Russian).
- Alexy R. Human dignity and proportionality analysis. Estacio Journal of Law, 2015, vol. 16, issue 3, pp. 110-115.
- Voßkuhle A. Der Grundsatz der Verhält-nismäßigkeit. Juristische Schulung, 2007, Bd. 47, H. 5, S. 429-431(In German).
- Ristroph A. Proportionality as a Principle of Limited Government. Duke Law Journal, 2005, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 262-264.
- Vitruk N.V. Obshchaya teoriya yuridicheskoy otvetstvennosti [General Theory of Legal Liability]. Moscow, Norma Publ., 2009, 300 p. (In Russian).
- Matskevich A.V. Realizatsiya funktsiy yuridicheskoy otvetstvennosti organami gosu-darstvennoy vlasti: na primere prokuratury: avtoref. … kand. yurid. nauk [Implemen-tation of the Functions of Legal Responsibility by Public Authorities: the Example of the Prosecutor’s Office. Cand. jurid. sci. diss. abstr.]. Moscow, 2006. (In Russian).
- Katasonov A.V. Preventivnaya funktsiya yuridicheskoy otvetstvennosti: avtoref. dis. … kand. yurid. nauk [Preventive Function of Legal Responsibility. Cand. jurid. sci. diss. abstr.]. Kazan, 2010, 26 p. (In Russian).
- Solomenik N.L. Vosstanovitel’naya funktsiya yuridicheskoy otvetstvennosti: avtoref. dis. … kand. yurid. nauk [Restorative Function of Legal Responsibility. Cand. jurid. sci. diss. abstr.]. Kazan, 2007, 30 p. (In Russian).
- Khachaturov R.L., Lipinskiy D.A. Obshchaya teoriya yuridicheskoy otvetstvennosti [Gen-eral Theory of Legal Liability]. St. Petersburg, Yuridicheskiy tsentr-Press Publ., 2007, 934 p. (In Russian).
- Kozhevnikov V.V. Funktsii yuridicheskoy otvetstvennosti: obshche-teoreticheskiye i otras-levyye aspekty [Functions of legal responsibility revisited: general and sectoral aspects]. Sovremennoye pravo – Modern Law, 2015, no. 4, pp. 5-14. (In Russian).
- Trofimova M.P. Funktsii yuridicheskoy otvetstvennosti: avtoref. dis. ... kand. yurid. nauk [Functions of Legal Responsibility. Cand. jurid. sci. diss. abstr.]. Saratov, 2000, 25 p. (In Russian).
- Maksimova I.V. Administrativnyye nakazaniya [Administrative Penalties]. Moscow, Nor-ma Publ., 2009, 464 p. (In Russian).
Supplementary files
