Affiliation:
1. Kutafin Moscow State Law University
Abstract
The article analyzes the interaction between administrative discretion and the main social regulators – religion, ethics and law. It is shown that historically discretion arises as a religious institution, consisting in the trust of public authorities and their officials in prophets – people who are able to contact with the divine forces. The procedure of discretio spirituum, used in the Middle Ages to determine whether a person is a prophet or a false prophet, is described separately. The significance of this procedure is expressed in the partial secularization of discretion, that is, the assumption by church authorities that the divine injunctions can be interpreted, supplemented, or ignored not only by God, but also by the aforementioned persons (prophets). This recognizes that discretion can be both negative (negative) and positive (positive); that the amounts of discretion granted to prophets must be in direct proportion to the degree of trust in them; and that there are specific criteria according to which to establish what amounts of discretion will be granted to prophets. After many centuries, this concept of administrative discretion has remained virtually unchanged. Ethical science reproduces it almost literally: it again refers to the trust, which this time is granted to executive authorities and their officials, as well as to the degree of such trust, which determines the scope of discretionary powers and is determined by certain criteria. Legal science borrows the above theory less explicitly, but its echoes can be detected there as well. In particular, according to one of the concepts of law understanding the law embodies a distrust (degree of distrust) between the people, and since the law and discretion are usually opposed to each other, discretion is again defined as trust (degree of trust). In the conclusion the conclusion is made about the special relevance of this approach to the administrative discretion because since 2020 the trust is a constitutional category.
Subject
Psychiatry and Mental health
Reference21 articles.
1. Evtikhiev A. F. Discretion (das freie Ermessen) of the Administration. Journal of the Ministry of Justice. 1910;5:77-101. (In Russ.).
2. Aleksandrova N. K. The Theme of Faust in German Literature: The Problem of Genre Originality. In: Zelenina T. I., Malykh L. M. (Eds.). Multilingualism in the Educational Space. Izhevsk: Udmurt University Publ.; 2012. P. 166–169. (In Russ.).
3. Solovey Yu. P. Administrative Discretion (Comparative Legal Research). In: Khachaturov R. L., Shergin A. P. (Eds.). Formation and Development of Branches of Law in the Historical and Modern Legal Reality of Russia. Vol. VIII: Administrative Law in the System of Modern Russian Law. Moscow: Yurlitinform Publ.; 2022. P. 407–454. (In Russ.).
4. Pócs É., Klaniczay G. (Eds.). Communicating with the Spirits. Vol. 1. Budapest, New York: Central European University Press; 2005. 296 p.
5. Ferber S. Demonic Possession and Exorcism in Early Modern France. London, New York: Routledge; 2004. 227 p.
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Discretion in Making Administrative Decisions on the Establishment and Clarification of Mandatory Requirements;Courier of Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL));2024-07-15
2. Management decisions in emergency situations;Courier of Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL));2024-07-15
3. ON SUBMISSION OF CONCEPTS IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION;Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Pravo;2019-06-01