Conflicts in law, examples of which will be given later, represent discrepancies between separate normative acts regulating the same or related legal relations. They are also called contradictions that arise during the application of law and the exercise of authority by competent structures and officials. In the article, we consider in more detail the features of overcoming and eliminating conflicts in Russian law.
Relevance of the issue
Conflicts in international and Russian law, of course, impede the coordinated work of legal institutions, often lead to infringement of the interests of participants in legal relations, reduce the effectiveness of regulatory regulation, negatively affect the state of law and order, legality, legal culture and legal awareness of society. The contradictions create inconvenience in the practice of applying the norms, significantly complicate the use of laws by ordinary citizens, and contribute to the development of legal nihilism.
In this regard, increased attention should be paid to overcoming conflicts in Russian law. Legislative bodies must constantly work to eliminate contradictions and discrepancies, bring standards in line with each other.
Causes of occurrence
Collisions in Russian law appear under the influence of various factors. Among the main reasons for their occurrence can be called the lag of domestic institutions from dynamically developing legal relations, the low quality of laws issued, inconsistency in the systematization of legal documents. New rules appear, and obsolete acts are not repealed.
The causes of collisions in Russian law can be divided into objective and subjective. Among the first are the inconsistency and variability of social relations regulated by norms. In addition, conflicts arise as a result of economic and political crises. So, for example, after the collapse of the USSR, a single legal field ceased to exist. The consequences of this phenomenon were the disintegration of the country, the sovereignty of the former republics, and then some regions within the Russian Federation.
Some types of collisions in Russian law are a consequence of the realization of the will of specific people. In such cases, they talk about the subjective reasons for the occurrence of contradictions in the norms. Often collisions arise as a result of the ideological and political confrontation of individual participants in social relations.
Types of collisions in Russian law
Currently, there are contradictions between:
- Provisions of the Constitution and other regulatory documents.
- Laws and regulations.
- Federal and regional regulations.
- Some state acts and international regulations. In such situations, the Constitution proclaims the priority of international norms ratified by Russia.
In addition, legal documents adopted back in Soviet times remain valid. Legally, they are not canceled, but in fact they do not correspond to the content and level of development of existing relations and the interests of their participants.
Conflicts in the constitutional law of the Russian Federation
Such contradictions are considered the most dangerous. The fact is that the Constitution enshrines key provisions on which all normative regulation is based. The emerging contradictions lead to a violation of the rights and freedoms of citizens, organizations, and infringement of the interests of the state.
As an example of a conflict in Russian law, we can mention the discrepancies between the provisions of the Federal Law on the Judicial System of the Russian Federation.
In the 3rd part of the 5th article of this law, it is said that the court, after discovering a case, inconsistency of an act issued by a state or other body, as well as an official, constitutional provisions, generally recognized international standards, international treaty of the Russian Federation, federal law, charter subject, makes a decision in accordance with legal requirements that are more powerful. In this case, there is a violation of the hierarchy established in paragraph 4 of Art. 15 of the Constitution.
Ways to Overcome Contradictions
The elimination of conflicts in Russian law is carried out using special techniques, tools, procedures and mechanisms. The choice of one method or another depends on the nature of the contradiction. The most common methods of resolving conflicts in Russian law include the following:
- Interpretation.
- Approval of a new legal act.
- Cancellation of obsolete regulations.
- Clarification or amendment of a previously adopted act.
- Arbitration, arbitration, administrative or other proceedings prescribed by law.
- Systematization and harmonization of norms.
- Negotiations, formation of conciliation commissions.
- Optimization of legal understanding, communication of practice and theory.
- Constitutional justice.
- International procedures.
General procedure for identifying contradictions
The resolution of conflicts in Russian law is carried out exclusively by those bodies that have legislative initiative. When discrepancies are identified, authorized entities should be governed by certain rules.
If there is a contradiction of acts issued by the same structure at different times, but relating to the same issue, the last approved document shall be applied. In this case, the principle, formulated by Roman jurists, applies. In accordance with it, a newly issued act cancels all provisions of the previous one that contradict it.
If the norms are approved simultaneously by different structures, those with higher power are subject to application. For example, a law and a decree, a government decree and an act of an industry department. Simply put, the hierarchical principle of applying the norms of Russian law is being implemented.
In the event of revealing of contradictions between general and special acts of the same level, the resolution of conflicts is carried out by applying special provisions, if norms of different levels are used, general acts are used. For example, the Constitution enshrines the principle of the irremovability of judges. Moreover, the Federal Law "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" provides for a specific term of office of judges of the Constitutional Court. Accordingly, FKZ lies with the application.
The Constitution enshrines the president’s right to suspend the decisions of the executive bodies of constituent entities of the Russian Federation if they reveal contradictions to the Basic Law, the provisions of international treaties, or if they infringe on freedom and human rights. The renewal of acts is carried out on the basis of a decision of the relevant court. This requirement is contained in part 2 of article 85 of the Constitution.
Part 1 of the same norm enshrines the president’s right to apply conciliation procedures to resolve conflicts. Russian law provides for the possibility of the head of state to refer the issue of eliminating contradictions to the appropriate court if an agreed decision is not reached. This method of conflict resolution is considered the most reliable and has long been used in legal practice.
At the same time, the possibility of lifting the president’s veto by a majority vote of members of both houses of the Federal Assembly was officially fixed.
Functions of the Constitutional Court
Quite often, conflicts arise in the interaction of different branches of government, the exercise of civil rights, the exercise by various structures and officials of their powers, the consideration of disputes on competence, and compliance of normative acts with the provisions of the Basic Law. The Constitutional Court plays an important role in resolving these contradictions.
All decisions of the Constitutional Court are recognized as sources of law. They are endowed with the substantive force of law. The precedents that are created by the court, acts of interpretation have regulatory significance. From this point of view, they are also considered the highest standards applicable to an indefinite number of cases and entities involved in legal relations.
The conflicts resolved by the Constitutional Court have not only legal, but often political significance. Often, court decisions cause widespread publicity. Examples include decisions prohibiting courts of general jurisdiction from returning cases for further investigation on their own initiative, and coercion to do so solely at the request of the defense and charges, restricting the courts' right to impose death sentences to the widespread use of the jury, etc.
Important point
It should be noted that it is necessary to use exclusively legal, and not forceful ways to resolve conflicts. Russian law provides for civilized methods of overcoming contradictions. However, this does not mean that coercion is always evil. In some cases stipulated by law, it is not only justified, but also inevitable. In world practice, the so-called federal intervention is often used. It is a violent intervention in a conflict when there is no other way to resolve it. Of course, it must be strictly legitimate. Intervention must be carried out with strict observance of the conditions and procedures established not only by domestic legislation, but also by international standards.
Conflict Threats
In the early 2000s, about half of the regulations issued at the regional level did not comply with the provisions of federal legislation. In the domestic law enforcement practice, there have been cases of non-fulfillment of instructions received from the central government, violation of the Constitution, manifestations of separatism, and disregard for court orders.
At the end of January 2000, at an expanded meeting of the Ministry of Justice, experts noted that a huge array of regional acts were not consistent with federal laws and violated human rights. Their subsequent accumulation may lead to the destruction of the unified legal field of the state, the executive vertical of power. There may be a situation of complete disobedience.
To prevent such threats, it is necessary to improve and legislate a system of instruments for monitoring the legality of regional acts. This, in particular, is about the introduction of a federal register of legal documents, the establishment of sanctions for failure to comply with instructions coming from federal authorities.
In the early 2000s, a mechanism for implementing the decisions of the Constitutional Court on the recognition of regional acts that are not consistent with federal legislation as unconstitutional began to be introduced into law enforcement practice .
The role of regional authorities
Of course, the adjustment of legislation can be carried out not only from above, but also from below. Many federal laws are imperfect; there are gaps and contradictions in them. This is especially true of regulations on privatization, bankruptcy, foreign trade, etc. To prevent conflicts, regional leaders are forced to issue their own acts.
It is worth saying that often the laws of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation are ahead of federal legal acts and are more progressive. Given this, many leaders believe that in some matters it should be inferior to the central authority, in some - regional. To build a democratic state, it is necessary to maintain a balance of interests.
This method of resolving contradictions is of particular practical importance. If steps are taken in a region to destroy the state, the central government should have effective mechanisms to legally suppress them. In emergency cases, the dissolution of regional parliaments and the removal of governors are possible. The task of all levels of government is to achieve the optimal combination of democratic principles and the authority of the center.
Interpretation Features
This method of resolving collisions, of course, is necessary, useful and effective. However, at the same time, interpretation can give rise to more serious contradictions. This is due to the fact that often the same events, circumstances, facts are interpreted by different structures (both official and unofficial), public associations, their leaders and ordinary citizens in different ways. This, in turn, expresses the opposition of these entities and can lead to a split in society.
Interpretation is often biased. It may depend on the socio-political preferences of interpreting entities, their culture, level of legal awareness and other factors. For example, there are different interpretations of the rules on privatization, taxes, elections, entrepreneurship, property.
The Constitutional Court does not have a single opinion on many issues: judges often declare their special position on any issues.
Conclusion
Legal conflicts are studied in the framework of an extensive scientific discipline - conflictology. This is a fairly new direction in domestic law and political science.
In pre-revolutionary years, the problem of resolving legal conflicts by Russian science was hardly studied. Only in the Soviet period did it become the subject of research by scientists. At present, undoubtedly, one can speak of certain successes in the process of developing a theoretical basis for eliminating various kinds of legal contradictions. However, work on the problem has not yet been completed. Legislative institutions, structures endowed with a legislative initiative have a lot to do to bring legal acts in line with each other.