Centralization of administrative influence on the bodies of internal affairs of Ukraine
Roman Shapoval,Khrystyna Solntseva
DOI: https://doi.org/10.37772/2518-1718-2020-4(32)-15
2020-12-15
Law and innovations
Abstract:Problem setting. In the article the authors analyse the essence and legal nature of control and supervision activities of the internal affairs bodies of Ukraine. Emphasis is placed on fundamentally important aspects of control and supervisory powers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, a parallel is drawn between their regulation in European countries. The necessity of strengthening the administrative influence on the activity of law enforcement bodies and their officials is substantiated. Target of research. The purpose of the study is determining the features of the legal status of bodies and their officials who are called to exercise administrative and supervisory powers in the system of internal affairs of Ukraine, outlining the possibilities of implementing legal norms in the system of national legislation. Analysis of recent researches and publications. Many foreign and domestic scholars, including Stalman J. I., Lovatcharin J., Kohei S., Simanuk A., Gorbova N. A., Parubchak I. O., Sopilnyk R. L. and others made a significant contribution to the study of the issue of administrative and supervisory powers in the system of internal affairs. The authors personally have studied some problematic aspects of the functioning of the mechanism of supervisory powers of public authorities in the field of political and territorial organization of the country at the international level. Article’s main body. The new model of building a law enforcement system, which is a consequence of the reform of internal affairs, requires the search for qualitatively new principles and methods in the field of public administration by law enforcement agencies. Today there are the following models of law enforcement system in foreign countries: centralized (model with a leading role of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, directive management style and clear vertical subordination of lower levels to central authorities; decentralized model (lack of a single national body, number of police forces, the predominant concentration of police control levers in the hands of regional authorities and local governments); semi-centralized model (provides for the presence of a ministry responsible for internal security, etc.). We agree with the views of scientists who emphasize the need for a combined police department, which combines the features of a centralized and decentralized management system. As for determining the administrative influence of the Ministry, the latter is implemented through such measures to ensure legality as supervision and control. There are several approaches to distinguishing these categories in the legal literature. The first group of researchers emphasizes the absence of a difference between control and supervision, arguing that supervision characterizes the presence of control powers, and hence identification. The legislator is also ambiguous in this aspect, because in some cases these concepts are identified. In turn, there are regulations where the disputed categories are the basis for the separation of powers between central executive bodies. Conclusions and prospects for the development. The introduction of a combined model of the law enforcement system will solve many personnel issues, as well as increase the efficiency of and public confidence in law enforcement agencies, create conditions for further decentralization of the law enforcement system. The experience of the Baltic states shows that in Ukraine, compared to others, the level of administrative influence of the Ministry of Internal Affairs on the controlled bodies is extremely low, which is reflected in the too narrow competence of the Central Executive Body. At the legislative level, the control and supervisory powers of state bodies are not sufficiently differentiated. These and other problems make it important to search for new models of administrative influence on the management of internal affairs in the country. An exemplary example of this can be the mental and ideological components of the Baltic countries.