THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY (ISSN- 2693-0803)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
26
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
PUBLISHED DATE: - 21-06-2024
DOI: -
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume06Issue06-04
PAGE NO.: - 26-30
MAIN FACTORS INFLUENCING LEGAL
MONITORING OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
LEGISLATIVE ACTS
MASHKUROV Gayrat Abdujalilovich
Candidate of Legal Sciences, Independent researcher of the Supreme School of Judges under the Supreme
Judicial Council of the Republic of Uzbekistan, Uzbekistan
INTRODUCTION
Legal scholars that have many factors that
influence legal monitoring note this. For example,
Russian legal scholars O.A.Korotkova and
T.A.Shavenkova, while analyzing the factors that
have a negative impact on the conduct of legal
monitoring, they emphasize that, despite the
planning and complexity of legal monitoring, the
mutual cooperation of the subjects performing
legal monitoring has not yet been clearly defined in
the legislation. At the same time, these scientists
have come to the conclusion that it is necessary to
adopt the Law "On legal monitoring in the Russian
Federation" as a solution to the problem noted in
the research work[1].
In our opinion, the fact that the rules of mutual
cooperation between the entities performing legal
monitoring are not clearly defined in the legal
documents may have a negative impact on the
monitoring. However, it is inappropriate to
consider this factor as the only factor that has a
negative impact on legal monitoring.
For example, any entity interested in the results of
legal monitoring can cooperate with the entity
conducting it in any form. Therefore, there is no
great need to define such cooperation by
legislation.
We can find the idea of relevance of mutual
cooperation of bodies conducting legal monitoring
in the researches of other scientists.
In particular, another legal scientist, N.A.
Polyashuk, who conducted a separate study on
legal monitoring, puts forward the idea that the
effectiveness of legal monitoring largely depends
on the cooperation of the bodies that implement it
[2].
Pay attention to one more issue here. If mutual
cooperation of state bodies performing legal
monitoring ensures the effectiveness of monitoring
on the one hand, on the other hand, these state
bodies are not interested in revealing to the public
the deficiencies identified in their respective
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Open Access
Abstract
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY (ISSN- 2693-0803)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
27
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
activities as a result of monitoring, and try to hide
information that works against them.
Another important factor affecting legal
monitoring is the fact that the information
necessary for legal monitoring is not open.
In this case, some scientists, talking about the
importance of the closure of information necessary
for legal monitoring, come to the conclusion that
this situation can lead to the instability of the
economic and political situation in the country[3,
127].
In fact, the availability of information is of great
importance in conducting legal monitoring. At the
same time, it is desirable to clarify the question of
what information is included in the sentence of
information necessary for conducting legal
monitoring.
In the current legislation, in particular, in the
regulation on the procedure for legal monitoring of
the execution of regulatory legal documents, only
the concept of "information on the object of legal
monitoring" is used, but no explanation is given to
it.
In our opinion, legal monitoring information
should be understood as any information that is
not prohibited by law and is relevant to legal
monitoring. Such information includes any
information on the activities of state bodies and
officials, as well as judicial practice materials and
any other information not prohibited by law.
It should be noted that in recent years, a number of
reforms have been implemented in our country to
ensure the transparency of information related to
the activities of state bodies and officials.
In particular, PQ-4273[4] of the President of the
Republic of Uzbekistan dated 09.04.2019 "On
additional measures to ensure the openness and
transparency of state administration and increase
the statistical potential of the country", "Openness
of budget information and citizens' participation in
the budget process" dated 22.08.2018 Decisions
PQ-3917[5] on measures to ensure active
participation" can be evaluated as important
reforms
aimed
at
ensuring
information
transparency.
The implementation of some tasks related to the
openness of information, which is important for
conducting legal monitoring, has not been ensured
until today.
In particular, the concept approved by the Decree
No. PF-5505 dated 08.08.2018 of the President of
the Republic of Uzbekistan "On approval of the
concept of improving the activity of norm creation"
envisages promptly announcing the texts of draft
laws and analytical materials related to them on
the web resources of the parliament after each
reading [6].
However, to date, the implementation of these
tasks is not provided in any of the web resources of
both chambers of the parliament, which in turn is
one of the factors that has a negative impact on
legal monitoring.
Some legal scholars pay particular attention to the
fact that the process of conducting social surveys
among the population is not foreseen as a factor
affecting legal monitoring.
In particular, O. V. Krilova emphasizes that
conducting social surveys among the population is
considered one of the main components of legal
monitoring [7].
In fact, conducting social surveys among the
population serves to ensure the objectivity of legal
monitoring. At the same time, it should be noted
that the current legislation does not provide for the
requirement to conduct social surveys during
monitoring.
When it comes to the negative factors affecting the
legal monitoring, the lawyer E.R. Chernova in his
research concludes that the current stage of the
development of the monitoring of legislative
documents does not allow for complete and
objective information about the effectiveness of
regulatory legal documents in the country.
In this case, this scientist cites the lack of a database
that allows to obtain information about the
effectiveness and completeness of legislative
documents as the basis for his conclusion.
At the same time, this scientist does not clarify
what information should be reflected in the
database, which will allow to obtain information
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY (ISSN- 2693-0803)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
28
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
about the effectiveness and completeness of
legislative documents.
In addition, such a database does not provide
information about which state div it is
maintained by.
In our opinion, at this point, it is appropriate to
clarify the concept of the database itself, which
provides information about the effectiveness and
completeness of legislative documents. In addition,
it is necessary to clarify issues such as which state
div maintains such a database, what information
is reflected in it, and what are the indicators for
finding the information in the database effective
and complete.
At the same time, it should be noted that it is
inappropriate to conclude that legal monitoring is
ineffective just because there is no database. For
example, assessing the effectiveness of legal
monitoring based only on the existence of a
database leads to a one-sided assessment and
cannot fully reveal the essence of legal monitoring.
Some scholars associate the factors affecting legal
monitoring with the entities that have the authority
to conduct monitoring.
In particular, legal scientist V.S. Eliseeva, who has
conducted special researches on legal monitoring,
singles out the fact that the courts, which are state
bodies that apply important rights, are excluded
from the scope of legal monitoring subjects as the
main problems encountered in the practice of
monitoring in Russia [8].
Supporting the above opinion of V.S. Eliseeva, it
should be noted that judicial bodies are considered
the main subject of legal monitoring, that at the
same time the norms of the legal document are
applied in practice in this div, and through this, it
is possible to evaluate the effectiveness of the legal
document in regulating social relations.
In addition, it is worth paying attention to the fact
that judicial bodies, unlike other legal monitoring
entities, are considered a separate branch of
government, they are not subject to executive
authorities, and in practice they are a truly
independent branch of government. All this serves
to ensure objectivity and comprehensiveness of
legal monitoring conducted by judicial authorities.
V.S. Eliseeva points out that as additional factors
affecting legal monitoring, law enforcement
monitoring plans do not have information about
the entities that initiate monitoring according to
regulatory legal documents, and the non-
transparency of the criteria for selecting proposals
for the monitoring plan and law enforcement
practice monitoring report. , cites the lack of
understanding of qualitative and quantitative
measurement of law enforcement monitoring
indicators (indicators, coefficients) [8].
In our opinion, it is inappropriate to consider all of
the factors listed above as factors that have a
serious negative impact on legal monitoring. In
particular, the non-availability of information
about the entities that initiate legal monitoring
cannot be assessed as a factor that has a serious
negative impact on monitoring.
Non-disclosure of the results of legal monitoring by
legal scholars has been evaluated in the legal
literature as one of the factors that have a negative
impact on monitoring.
In particular, in the researches of some legal
scholars, it is emphasized that the results of legal
monitoring must be published in open sources, that
the entities adopting normative legal documents
should study and analyze such information, and
through this, it is necessary to take measures to
improve the quality of the adopted legislative
documents [9, 127 ].
In fact, not only legal monitoring, but also the
results of any research conducted by state bodies
and non-state organizations on the effectiveness of
legislative documents should be disclosed to the
public through mass media.
This, in turn, on the one hand, strengthens the
confidence of the population in the legality of
society, on the other hand, it serves to increase the
legal consciousness and culture of citizens, as well
as to increase the effectiveness of public control.
In some legal literature, the lack of opinion of
citizens, civil society institutions and other non-
governmental organizations during the monitoring
process is mentioned as a factor that has a negative
impact on legal monitoring [10, 55].
When it comes to this, some scientists emphasize
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY (ISSN- 2693-0803)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
29
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
that ensuring the participation of civil society
institutions and citizens in legal monitoring is one
of the main tasks of the state and society.
It is also noted that the involvement of civil society
institutions and citizens in the process of
monitoring by these scientists is considered one of
the main tasks facing the state and authorized state
bodies in order to achieve the main goal of
monitoring.
At the same time, these sources put forward the
view that the opinion of citizens and non-
governmental organizations should be considered
as a legal obligation during legal monitoring [10,
55].
In our opinion, there is no need to specify in the
legal documents as a legal obligation to obtain the
opinion of citizens or institutions of civil society in
any legal monitoring conducted.
After all, citizens and public organizations should
be interested in every process in society, especially
the results of legal monitoring, and participate in
this process with their own free will.
In the legislative documents, the establishment of
the legal obligation to obtain the opinion of citizens
and public organizations in relation to the
organizers of legal monitoring may lead to the
falsification of such information in the future or the
failure to fulfill such a requirement at all.
For this reason, it is necessary to pay special
attention to the extent to which it is possible to
perform any obligation on the entities conducting
legal monitoring.
As we have seen, certain studies have been
conducted by scientists on the factors affecting
legal monitoring. As a result of the research, all the
identified factors that have a negative impact on
legal monitoring are rightfully recognized, but also
reflect the aspects specific to the legal system of the
respective state.
REFERENCES
1.
О.А.Короткова,
Т.А.Шавенкова.
Антикоррупционная экспертиза в системе
правового мониторинга. Журнал Теория
государства и права. 2020 г. №19. –
126 С.
2.
Н.А.Поляшук. Правовой мониторинг в
нормотворческой
деятельности
государственных
органов
Республики
Беларусь. Право.by № 3(59) 2019. –
32 С.
https://elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_39183
478_31557595.pdf
3.
О.А.Короткова,
Т.А.Шавенкова.
Антикоррупционная экспертиза в системе
правового мониторинга. Журнал Теория
государства и права. 2020 г. №19. –
127 С.
4.
Ўзбекистон Республикаси Президентининг
09.04.2019
йилдаги
“Давлат
бошқарувининг
очиқлиги
ва
шаффофлигини
таъминлаш
ҳамда
мамлакатнинг статистика салоҳиятини
ошириш
юзасидан
қўшимча
чора
-
тадбирлар
тўғрисида”ги
ПҚ–
4273-
сон
қарори. https://lex.uz/docs/4277342
5.
Ўзбекистон Республикаси Президентининг
22.08.2018
йилдаги
“Бюджет
маълумотларининг очиқлигини ва бюджет
жараёнида
фуқароларнинг
фаол
иштирокини таъминлаш чора
-
тадбирлари
тўғрисида”ги
ПҚ–
3917-
сон
қарори.
https://lex.uz/docs/3879197
6.
Ўзбекистон Республикаси Президентининг
08.08.2018 йилдаги “Норма ижодкорлиги
фаолиятини
такомиллаштириш
концепциясини
тасдиқлаш тўғрисида”ги
ПФ
-5505-
сон
Фармони.
https://lex.uz/docs/3858817
7.
О.В.Крилова Правовой мониторинг в
социальной сфере республики Марий эл.
Государственное
и
муниципальное
управление в XXI веке. Межрегиональный
открытый
социальный
институт,
г.
Йошкар
-
Ола.
2017.
–
19-
21
с.
https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=29023653
8.
Елисеева
В.
С.
Мониторинг
правоприменения и оценка регулирующего
воздействия
в
системе
правового
мониторинга. Государство и право в
изменяющемся
мире:
материалы
международной
научно
-
практической
конференции, Н. Новгород, 5 марта 2015 г.
—
Н. Новгород: ПФ ФГБОУВО «РГУП», 2016.
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY (ISSN- 2693-0803)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
30
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
—
165 с. [Электронный ресурс]. Режим
доступа: http://vrb.rgup.ru/
9.
О.А.Короткова,
Т.А.Шавенкова.
Антикоррупционная экспертиза в системе
правового мониторинга. Журнал Теория
государства и права. 2020 г. №19. –
127 С.
10.
Бекбаев Е.З., Дюсенов Е.А., Каракожаев О.С.
Участие граждан, общественных и научных
организаций в проведении правового
мониторинга. Аналитический отчет по теме
фундаментального и научно
-
прикладного
исследования:
“Проблемы
и
пути
совершенствования
правового
мониторинга в Республике Казахстан”.
Центр
правового
мониторинга
ГУ
“Институт законодательства Республики
Казахстан”. –
Астана, 2015. –
С. 55.
