Operation Of State Power Research Articles

Legal basis for the use of covert means

Aim: The use of covert means is any information gathering intelligence operation (secret police activity) in which the authorised authorities of the State seek to obtain new knowledge in the course of administrative and criminal proceedings without the knowledge of the holder of the information, by limiting the right of self-determination. In dictatorships, this form of exercise of state power is also dominated by arbitrariness. Constitutional states place the use of secret means on a public law basis. This study aims to demonstrate that it is possible to regulate acts of public authority that are at the heart of secrecy by means of legal instruments whose core is publicity. Methodology: The objective outlined above can only be achieved if the dogmatic and moral characteristics of the legislation are harmonised with the specific characteristics of the secret police. The task is not easy. Legislation is always about the future and is always based on abstract prognosis; covert intelligence aims to discover the past, the present and the future, and the knowledge to be acquired is always unique and concrete. Finidings: The abstract nature of the regulation and the uniqueness of the intelligence operation resolve the contradiction between publicity and secrecy. What is public is the rule, what is secret is the application of the rule to a specific situation. However, legislation can become fully formalised when it no longer imposes limits on the operation of state power, but merely authorises it, opening the way to free discretion. In such a case, the guise of legality conceals an untrammelled power. Value: Law that serves humanity is an effective means of preserving social order. Secret data-collection requires a limitation of rights, yet it is indispensable to combat violations (principle of necessity), provided that it does not cause more serious harm than the threat against which it is used (principle of proportionality).

Legal basis for the use of covert means

Aim: The use of covert means is any information gathering intelligence operation (secret police activity) in which the authorised authorities of the State seek to obtain new knowledge in the course of administrative and criminal proceedings without the knowledge of the holder of the information, by limiting the right of self-determination. In dictatorships, this form of exercise of state power is also dominated by arbitrariness. Constitutional states place the use of secret means on a public law basis. This study aims to demonstrate that it is possible to regulate acts of public authority that are at the heart of secrecy by means of legal instruments whose core is publicity. Methodology: The objective outlined above can only be achieved if the dogmatic and moral characteristics of the legislation are harmonised with the specific characteristics of the secret police. The task is not easy. Legislation is always about the future and is always based on abstract prognosis; covert intelligence aims to discover the past, the present and the future, and the knowledge to be acquired is always unique and concrete. Finidings: The abstract nature of the regulation and the uniqueness of the intelligence operation resolve the contradiction between publicity and secrecy. What is public is the rule, what is secret is the application of the rule to a specific situation. However, legislation can become fully formalised when it no longer imposes limits on the operation of state power, but merely authorises it, opening the way to free discretion. In such a case, the guise of legality conceals an untrammelled power. Value: Law that serves humanity is an effective means of preserving social order. Secret data-collection requires a limitation of rights, yet it is indispensable to combat violations (principle of necessity), provided that it does not cause more serious harm than the threat against which it is used (principle of proportionality).

Introduction to Special Issue: Critical Interventions on the Spaces and Practices of State Power

Many analyses of the 2011 uprisings and their aftermath 2011 uprisings have been built explicitly on social movements theory with a focus on specific episodes of social unrest. Others have employed procedural approaches from theories of democratization. The nation-level unit of analysis dominant in these approaches reproduces classic regime-character typologies and invokes questions about the relationship between regime type and successful social mobilization. This special issue explores the spaces and practices of state power beyond the conventional framework, giving special attention to space, time, and the multiple scales of relations of power. The contributors explore how these alternative approaches open up different questions into the operation of state power—some in the specific context of the uprisings and some in the course of more quotidian administration.

Research on the Reform of the National Supervision System in China: From the Perspective of the Supervision Committee Established by Constitutional Amendment

憲法是國家的根本大法，是對國家權力運行體制機制等重要問題的原則性、綱領性規定，而修改憲法更是一個國家政治生活中的一件大事，是對國家面臨國內外的重大變局或時代潮流的需要所進行的政治改革。2018年3月11日，中共當局通過1982年憲法的第五次修正案，設置國家級反貪腐機構──監察委員會，這是國家監察體制改革的頂層設計，對監察體制、政治權力及黨政關係的重大調整，把全面反腐向縱深推進，並為監察委員會的設立提供憲法根據。十九大後，習近平的權力達到空前的頂峰，在修憲時將「中國共產黨領導」寫入憲法條文，並刪除國家主席任期的限制，面對此一情勢，國家監察體制必須進行相應的改革，除了順應改革這一時勢的需求之外，更象徵在反貪腐調查方面的權力全面制度化。腐敗是當前中共當局所面臨的最大威脅，深化國家監察體制改革是十九大所提出的具體改革目標，由此可知，監察委員會在未來中國的政治結構中將扮演徵為重要的角色，足跡將遍及到黨和國家的各個方面，無怪乎有人說到，十七大後看政法委，十八大後看中紀委，十九大後看監察委。近年來，中共當局正極力推動全面依法治國，積極建構法治政府，不過，法治的精神，即不論想做什麼，一定要有充分的理由和根據，而依法治國的精神，更是強調監察委員會的一切所為，都應該依法行政，遵循法律規定的要求，因此，國家監察體制改革，既要關注權力的配置，更要關注權利的保障，監察委員除了注意廉政與反腐的任務之外，更是不能忽視人權的保障，而監察委員會的一舉一動，正是檢驗中共當局是否真正貫徹依法治國決心的試金石。 The Constitution is the fundamental law of the country and the principled and programmatic stipulation of the important issues such as the system and mechanism of the operation of state power. The amendment of the Constitution is a major event in the political life of a country and a political reform for the country facing major changes at home and abroad or the needs of the trend of the times. On March 11, 2018, through the Fifth Amendment of the 1982 Constitution, the Chinese Communist authorities set up a national anti-corruption body, the Supervisory Committee, which is the top-level design of the reform of the national supervisory system. It has made significant adjustments to the supervisory system, political power and the relationship between the Party and the government, pushed forward the comprehensive anti-corruption in depth, and set up the Supervisory Committee. Provide constitutional basis. After the Nineteenth National Congress of the Communist Party of China, Xi Jinping's power reached an unprecedented peak. When amending the Constitution, he wrote “the leadership of the Communist Party of China” into the provisions of the Constitution and deleted the limitation of the term of office of the President of the State. Faced with this situation, the state supervision system must be reformed accordingly. In addition to meeting the needs of the current situation of reform, it is more symbolic of opposit The power of corruption investigation is fully institutionalized. Corruption is the greatest threat facing the current Chinese Communist authorities. Deepening the reform of the national supervision system is the specific reform goal proposed by the Nineteenth National Congress of the Communist Party of China. From this, we can see that the supervision committee will play an important role in the future political structure of China, and its footprint will cover all aspects of the Party and the country. In recent years, the Chinese Communist authorities are making great efforts to promote the rule of law in an all-round way and actively construct a government ruled by law. However, the spirit of the rule of law, that is, whatever you want to do, must have sufficient reasons and grounds. The spirit of the rule of law, in particular, emphasizes that all the actions of the Supervisory Committee should be administered according to law and abide by the requirements of the law. Therefore, in the reform of the national supervision system, attention should be paid not only to the allocation of power, but also to the protection of rights. In addition to the tasks of clean government and anti-corruption, the supervisors should not ignore the protection of human rights.

Research on the Reform of the National Supervision System in China: From the Perspective of the Supervision Committee Established by Constitutional Amendment

憲法是國家的根本大法，是對國家權力運行體制機制等重要問題的原則性、綱領性規定，而修改憲法更是一個國家政治生活中的一件大事，是對國家面臨國內外的重大變局或時代潮流的需要所進行的政治改革。2018年3月11日，中共當局通過1982年憲法的第五次修正案，設置國家級反貪腐機構──監察委員會，這是國家監察體制改革的頂層設計，對監察體制、政治權力及黨政關係的重大調整，把全面反腐向縱深推進，並為監察委員會的設立提供憲法根據。十九大後，習近平的權力達到空前的頂峰，在修憲時將「中國共產黨領導」寫入憲法條文，並刪除國家主席任期的限制，面對此一情勢，國家監察體制必須進行相應的改革，除了順應改革這一時勢的需求之外，更象徵在反貪腐調查方面的權力全面制度化。腐敗是當前中共當局所面臨的最大威脅，深化國家監察體制改革是十九大所提出的具體改革目標，由此可知，監察委員會在未來中國的政治結構中將扮演徵為重要的角色，足跡將遍及到黨和國家的各個方面，無怪乎有人說到，十七大後看政法委，十八大後看中紀委，十九大後看監察委。近年來，中共當局正極力推動全面依法治國，積極建構法治政府，不過，法治的精神，即不論想做什麼，一定要有充分的理由和根據，而依法治國的精神，更是強調監察委員會的一切所為，都應該依法行政，遵循法律規定的要求，因此，國家監察體制改革，既要關注權力的配置，更要關注權利的保障，監察委員除了注意廉政與反腐的任務之外，更是不能忽視人權的保障，而監察委員會的一舉一動，正是檢驗中共當局是否真正貫徹依法治國決心的試金石。 The Constitution is the fundamental law of the country and the principled and programmatic stipulation of the important issues such as the system and mechanism of the operation of state power. The amendment of the Constitution is a major event in the political life of a country and a political reform for the country facing major changes at home and abroad or the needs of the trend of the times. On March 11, 2018, through the Fifth Amendment of the 1982 Constitution, the Chinese Communist authorities set up a national anti-corruption body, the Supervisory Committee, which is the top-level design of the reform of the national supervisory system. It has made significant adjustments to the supervisory system, political power and the relationship between the Party and the government, pushed forward the comprehensive anti-corruption in depth, and set up the Supervisory Committee. Provide constitutional basis. After the Nineteenth National Congress of the Communist Party of China, Xi Jinping's power reached an unprecedented peak. When amending the Constitution, he wrote “the leadership of the Communist Party of China” into the provisions of the Constitution and deleted the limitation of the term of office of the President of the State. Faced with this situation, the state supervision system must be reformed accordingly. In addition to meeting the needs of the current situation of reform, it is more symbolic of opposit The power of corruption investigation is fully institutionalized. Corruption is the greatest threat facing the current Chinese Communist authorities. Deepening the reform of the national supervision system is the specific reform goal proposed by the Nineteenth National Congress of the Communist Party of China. From this, we can see that the supervision committee will play an important role in the future political structure of China, and its footprint will cover all aspects of the Party and the country. In recent years, the Chinese Communist authorities are making great efforts to promote the rule of law in an all-round way and actively construct a government ruled by law. However, the spirit of the rule of law, that is, whatever you want to do, must have sufficient reasons and grounds. The spirit of the rule of law, in particular, emphasizes that all the actions of the Supervisory Committee should be administered according to law and abide by the requirements of the law. Therefore, in the reform of the national supervision system, attention should be paid not only to the allocation of power, but also to the protection of rights. In addition to the tasks of clean government and anti-corruption, the supervisors should not ignore the protection of human rights.

Jonson’s Poetaster and the Politics of Defamation

This essay argues that Jonson’s late Elizabethan comedy Poetaster explores in highly complex ways the role of defamatory accusations in the operation of state power, the defense of public morality, and the status of poetry as a form of moral discourse. It does this through two plot-lines, one consisting of efforts by the informer Asinius Lupus to ingratiate himself with the Emperor Augustus by accusing the poets Ovid and Vergil of sedition; the other involving conflicts between Horace, who represents Jonson himself, and other characters who complain against his satires as seditious libels. Lupus’ successful accusation against Ovid raises difficult issues about whether a ruler committed to restoring public morality can tolerate erotic poetry and playfully scandalous erotic behavior within his own family and household. Close reading suggests that Jonson regarded eroticism as less dangerous than the jealous repression of libidinous instincts, but he provides enough outwardly plausible support for the case against Ovid to challenge thought. In the play Horace successfully defends himself by claiming that his satire attacks vices rather than individuals and that his accusers have defamed him by claiming otherwise. But this position is coyly undermined by the fact that two of those accusers are thinly veiled caricatures of Jonson’s rival poets Thomas Dekker and John Marston, who are subjected to ritual humiliation at the play’s conclusion. By engaging in defamation even while pretending to repudiate it, Jonson implied that despite their potential for misuse, libelous attacks on individuals remained a necessary weapon of the satiric poet. [R.M.S.]

Peculiarities of Mechanism of State Power Operation in Modern Russia: Traditions and Foreign Experience

The article discusses the features of the form of government of the Russian Federation, which determine the specifics of the mechanism of interaction between the head of the State and the executive and legislative authorities of the Russian Federation. The role of the Constitution of the Russian Federation in the formation of the mechanism of state power is difficult to overestimate. It was designed to solve the issues of organization of power, and to find a balance of relations "Federation - constituent entity of the Federation", as well as to comply with the principles of federalism and unity of the system of state power. In many ways, it was the adoption of the 1993 Constitution that made it possible to stabilize the social and political situation in the Russian Federation. Close attention is given to the specific form of government of the Russian Federation - the so-called semi-presidential or mixed Republic. The status of the President of the Russian Federation is extremely interesting, given the form of government enshrined in the Constitution. The personal factor, according to many scientists, plays a significant role in state-building and in historical perspective, especially given how Russia has changed at the turn of the century. The analysis of the constitutional norms and the existing practice of relations between the President of the Russian Federation and the legislative bodies of state power of the Russian Federation makes it possible to draw conclusions that this Constitution of the Russian Federation legally uses the "theory of rationalized parliamentarism" in the consolidation of the powers of the state authorities. It presupposes the legal constitutional consolidation of the limitation of the role of Parliament in the state administration and domination in the state mechanism, first of all of the head of state and the executive power. According to the developers of this theory, it is necessary to improve the efficiency of public administration. The influence of historical traditions of the organization of powers in the Russian State and the corresponding foreign experience on the mechanism of state power operation in the Russian Federation is considered.

Montesquieu Revisited, or the Mixed Constitution and the Separation of Powers in Canada

AbstractMontesquieu may be a better guide to understanding the nature of the Canadian state, past and present, than Hobbes or Locke of any of the other political philosophers of the past. This article argues that Montesquieu's doctrine has two major components–a discussion of the mixed constitution, blending monarchical, aristocratic and democratic features, and the separation of powers that distinguishes among executive, legislative and judicial. Each of these components can be used to illuminate the operation of state power at the central level in this country, the first the long period between 1867 and the Second World War, the second the post-Second World War period, and more especially the situation that has arisen with the passage of theConstitution Act, 1982.