Сontrol and supervision: peculiarities of legislative consolidation of terms and problems of law enforcement

Abstract

The article analyzes modern scientific views on the essence and definitions of legal terms "control" and "supervision". Scientific arguments, with the help of which legal scholars justify approaches to the comparison of these concepts, are systematized. The article substantiates the conclusion that decades-long scientific discussion on the content and correlation of control and supervision is largely due to the inconsistency and vagueness of their legislative enshrinement.

The wording of "control (supervisory)" activity, which is applied in the main federal laws, contributes to the continuation of scientific discussion on the correlation of these concepts, and the emergence of problems for law enforcement (including the highest judicial) bodies. Also problems with understanding the essence and correlation of these concepts arise at regional subjects of lawmaking. Such scientific and legislative blurring of the concepts under study has a significant negative contribution to the quality of law enforcement and education. The article substantiates possible ways out of the current situation in the legislation.

In particular, three options are proposed to solve the problem of semantic ambiguity of legal definitions of the terms "control" and "supervision". The first one is to legislate these terms. The second - not to use the term "supervision" in the legislation (in this case the term "control" will fully fulfill all the functions of ensuring the streamlining of state inspections. The third - the term "supervision" to denote the control functions of the prosecutor's office (in this case we will emphasize the special status of this body and minimize the necessary changes in the legislation).