CCR №1 (140) 2021
Spoilers as a form of abuse of power

The full text of the article is available only in Russian.

Abstract

In the article the author specifies some general theoretical approaches to the concept of abuse of power, which were outlined by him earlier in his article «Abuse of Rights and Abuse of Power: To the Formation of a Unified Doctrine» published in one of the issues of this journal. In the introduction, the author proposes the concept of spoilers as a form of abuse and defines it in a following way: a participation of representatives of public authorities in the distribution of limited resources, which has the sole purpose of hindering (blocking) the exercise by citizens of their right to free expression of opinion (Article 29) and the right to participate in the life of the state (Part 1 of Article 32) and which is therefore unacceptable within the meaning of Article 18 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The main part of the article discusses possible illustrations of spoilers in the following areas of legal relations: the organization of public assemblies (including in single specially designated places), participation in public hearings (in particular, on the adoption and amendment of land use rules), initiation of a federal referendum (namely, challenging the decision of the election commission to register a regional subgroup of the initiative group). Finally, in the last part of the work, the author briefly examines possible models of legal regulation of countering abuse of power, and also warns against uncritical (politicized) use of this category, since this, in turn, may be fraught with violations of citizens’ rights. According to the author, among such models are ex ante mechanisms (amending the current legislation and construing the norm in a constitutionally biding manner) and ex post mechanisms (application of the principle of inadmissibility of abuse of power by a court of general jurisdiction when considering a specific dispute), each of which has its advantages and disadvantages.

About the author:
Pavel Blokhin — Candidate of Sciences (Ph.D.) in Law, Associate Professor, Higher School of Economics, Saint Petersburg, Russia

Citation: Blokhin P. (2021) Spoylerstvo kak chastnyy sluchay zloupotrebleniya polnomochiyami [Spoilers as a form of abuse of power]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.30, no.1, pp.47–58. (In Russian).

References

Aminova G.G. (2015) Partii-spoylery kak ugroza razvitiyu politicheskoy konkurentsii [Legal analysis of the consequences of the party reform of 2012]. Kontury global’nykh transformatsiy: politika, ekonomika, pravo, vol.2, no.8, pp.127–132. (In Russian).

Blokhin P. (2018) Zloupotreblenie pravami i zloupotreblenie vlast’yu: k postroeniyu edinoy doktriny [Abuse of rights and abuse of power: to the formation of a unified doctrine]. Sravnitelnoe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.27, no.2, pp.34–50. (In Russian).

Blokhin P.D. (2017) Analogiya v prave i sudebnyy pretsedent (sravnitel’no-pravovye paralleli). Chast’ II (okonchanie) [Analogy in law and judicial precedent (comparative-legal parallels). Part II]. Zhurnal konstitutsionnogo pravosudiya, vol.58, no.4, pp.29–38. (In Russian).

Braibant G. (1988) Frantsuzskoe administrativnoe pravo [Le droit administratif français], D.I.Vasil’ev, V.D.Karpovich (transl.), Moscow: Progress. (In Russian).

Ekshtayn K. (2004) Osnovnye prava i svobody po rossiyskoy Konstitutsii i Evropeyskoy konventsii: uchebnoe posobie dlya vuzov [Fundamental rights and freedoms according to Russian Constitution and European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: a study guide for universities], Moscow: Nota Bene. (In Russian).

Emel’yanov D.E., Makhrin A.V. (2019) Problemy vospriyatiya ideologii rossiyskikh politicheskikh partiy-spoylerov i partiy-skvotterov v sravnitel’nom aspekte [The problem of perception of the ideology of the Russian political parties-spoilers and parties of squatters in a comparative perspective]. Universum: obshchestvennye nauki, vol.53, no.2. Available at: https://7universum.com/ru/social/archive/item/6980 (accessed: 13.02.2021). (In Russian).

Khramova T.M. (2012) Pravo na kontrdemonstratsii: ugroza ili indikator urovnya demokratii? [Right to counter-demonstrate: a threat or an indicator of democracy level?]. Konstitutsionnoe i munitsipal’noe pravo, no.7, pp.10–16. (In Russian).

Santos D. (2017) Ralph Nader’s “Spoiler” Legacy. Claremont Journal of Law and Public Policy, 23 March. Available at: https://www.5clpp.com/?p=1154 (accessed: 13.02.2021).

Shatalova A.N., Tykanova E.V. (2018) Neformal’nye praktiki uchastnikov publichnykh slushaniy (sluchay Sankt-Peterburga) [Informal practices of the public hearing participants (the case of Saint Petersburg)]. Zhurnal sotsiologii i sotsial’noy antropologii, vol.4, no.21, pp.63–84. (In Russian).

Sintsov G.V. (2016) K voprosu o privlechenii k konstitutsionno-pravovoy otvetstvennosti za narushenie zakonodatel’stva o referendume Rossiyskoy Federatsii [On the issue of bringing to constitutional and legal responsibility for violation of the legislation on the referendum of the Russian Federation]. Grazhdanin i pravo, no.8, pp.31–33. (In Russian).

Trutnev E.K. (2011) Kommentariy k Gradostroitel’nomu kodeksu Rossiyskoy Federatsii v chasti instituta territorial’nogo planirovaniya [Commentary on the Urban Planning Code of the Russian Federation regarding the institute of territorial planning]. Available at: http://www.urbaneconomics.ru/node/4617 (accessed: 13.02.2021). (In Russian).

Zimul’dinova S.K. (2018) Ot publichnykh slushaniy k souchastvuyushchemu proektirovaniyu [From PS to SP — from public hearings to citizen participation in design]. Mezhdunarodnyy zhurnal gumanitarnykh i estestvennykh nauk, no.3, pp.166–170. (In Russian).

Issue articles