Administrative and Legal Framework for Citizens’ Participation in the Maintenance of Public Order in Russia and Finland

Abstract

The article provides a comparative analysis of administrative legal norms of the Russian Federation and Finland that regulate the participation of citizens in the protection of public order. The relevance of the chosen topic is determined by the fact that the human rights activities of law enforcement agencies, their importance in the fieldof public law enforcement, personal and public security is often unproductive, especially in the context of the global economic crisis, in which the functioning of law enforcement agencies alone is obviously not enough to protect human rights and freedoms and maintain public law and order. It is known that public tension in the state, including in Russia and Finland, increases sharply in emergency situations: during man-made disasters, epidemics, social crises, and terrorist activities. In such situations, the existence of public organizations whose activities guarantee the protection of public order and the elimination of negative consequences of emergency situations is extremely necessary. The Author considers the concept of public order, reveals its essence and content. The definition of the term “protection of public order” is formulated. It defines the legal regulation of citizens’ participation in public order protection in the Russian Federation and Finland. Common and similar features of such regulation are highlighted. The main legal acts regulating the participation of citizens in the protection of public order in Russia and Finland are analyzed in detail. According to the Author, strict centralization, as well as the lack of proper interaction of law enforcement agencies with society, is one of the key problems of enforcement and protection of public order in the law enforcement system of Russia and Finland. The issue of voluntary national teams functioning both in Russia and Finland is being considered. Attention is drawn to their specific features. In the end, the author concludes that at present, both for Russia and Finland, the issue of protecting citizens who take part in the protection of public order is a difficult one. It can be stated that in comparison with the Russian Federation, Finland provides a much smaller amount of guarantees for the protection of citizens who participate in the protection of public order.