Some Features of the Public Protection of Personal Intangible Benefits
Abstract
The article analyses legal protection of personal intangible benefits provided by the constitutional, criminal, criminal procedure and administrative law. Public protection, according to the author, possesses some special features such as purpose, forms, methods, order and guarantees of protection of the personal intangible rights. It is noted that the protection mechanism of personal intangible rights consists of jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional forms of protection, and of personal (self-defense), collective (social), administrative and judicial protection forms. In the article, the author specifies that justifiable defense and infliction of harm in the conditions of emergency can be considered as public methods of self-defense. Some substantial defects of these institutes interfere their effective application. According to the author, mass-meetings, processions, demonstrations, picketing can be referred to collective (social) methods of the public protection of personal intangible benefits. A special attention in the article is paid to studying the guarantees of the public protection provided to some personal intangible benefits in case of application of a jurisdictional form of protection. As a result of research, the author comes, in particular, to the following conclusions. First, the legal protection of the personal intangible benefits provided by norms of the public law has multidimensional character. Secondly, recognition of the intangible benefits as objects of legal protection in public law gives them nature of public values encroachment on which violates the rights and interests not only individuals, but the states and societies in general. Thirdly, the compensation orientation of legal protection of the personal intangible benefits isn't traced accurately in the public law and is connected with the moral satisfaction. The satisfaction of the victims, his relatives and other uncertain circle of people who knew about the socially dangerous act is a result of involvement of the guilty person to the criminal or administrative responsibility. Fourthly, the analysis of the norms of the public law allows stating that the state recognizes the special value of honor, dignity and business reputation of the officials.
References
Archibasova L.A. (2012) Neobkhodimaya oborona i prichinenie vreda pri zaderzhanii litsa, sovershivshego prestuplenie: chto novogo? [Justifiable Protection and Infliction of Harm] Zakonodatel'stvo i praktika, no 2, pp. 56-58.
Dvoryankina T.S. (2007) Uvazhenie chesti i dostoinstva lichnosti kak nravstvennaya osnova sudebnogo razbiratel'stva: Monografiya [Respecting Honour and Dignity as a Moral Base for Court Proceeding. Monograph]. Moscow: Sputnik, 117 p. (in Russian)
Gulieva N.B. (2013) Ugolovno-pravovaya zashchita chesti i dostoinstva predstavitelya vlasti [Criminal Law Protection as to Honour and Dignity for Public Authority]. Vestnik KemGU, no 4(56), pp. 270-273.
Khachaturov R.L. (2010) Kraynyaya neobkhodimost' v prave [Extreme Necessity in Law]. Vektor nauki TGU, no 1(11), pp. 152-156.
Koroleva M.M. (2010) Vopros ob ugolovno-pravovoy zashchite chesti i dostoinstva v zakonodatel'stve Rossiyskoy Federatsii [Criminal Law Protection of Honour and Dignity in Russian Federation]. Probely v rossiyskom zakonodatel'stve, no 3, pp. 168-170.
Kozhevina E.V. (2010) Nematerial'nye blaga kak ob”ekty grazhdanskikh prav: diskussionnye voprosy teorii i sudebnoe tolkovanie [Intangible Benefits and Civil Rights]. Tsivilist, no 4, pp. 59-63.
Linkevich A.E., Poezzhalov V.B. (2013) Nekotorye problemnye aspekty, svyazannye s raz”yasneniyami polozheniy Plenuma Verkhovnogo suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii o neobkhodimoy oborone [Commentaries to the Provisions of the RF Supreme Court on Justifiable Defence]. Vestnik VEGU, no 4 (66), pp. 22-26.
Nazarenkov I.V. (2012) Zashchita chesti i dostoinstva lichnosti v otechestvennom ugolovnom zakonodatel'stve i poyavlenie oskorbleniya kak samostoyatel'nogo vida prestupleniya [Protecting Honour and dignity in Russian Criminal Law]. Vestnik OGU, no 3 (139), pp. 134-138.
Novikov A.V. (2012) Obespechenie zashchity dostoinstva lichnosti zakonodatel'stvom ob administrativnykh pravonarusheniyakh [Protecting Honour by Administrative Legislation]. Vestnik Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, no 2, pp. 249-263.
Nurkaeva T.N. (2013) Problemy ugolovno-pravovoy okhrany polovoy svobody i polovoy neprikosnovennosti lichnosti v svete izmeneniy zakona i sudebnoy praktiki [Criminal Law Protection of Sexual Freedom and Sexual Immunity]. Vestnik VEGU, no 4 (66), pp. 55-59.
Pantyukhina I.V. (2011) Ponyatie prestupleniy protiv polovoy svobody i polovoy neprikosnovennosti [Crimes against Sexual Freedom and Sexual Immunity]. Yuridicheskaya nauka, no 1, pp. 52-54.
Puntus S.A. (2011) Pravo na uchastie v publichnykh meropriyatiyakh: mesto v sisteme konstitutsionnykh prav i osnovy pravovogo regulirovaniya [Right to Participating in Public Events]. Osnovnye tendencii razvitiya rossiyskogo zakonodatel'stva, no 6, pp. 16-20.
Rueva E.O. (2011) Problemy dekriminalizatsii klevety i oskorbleniya v rossiyskom ugolovnom prave [Decriminalizing Slander in Russian Criminal Law]. Izvestiya vysshikh uchebnykh zavedeniy. Ural'skiy region, no 3, pp. 4-8.
Savinov A.V. (2011) Opasnost' kak uslovie pravomernosti prichineniya vreda pri krayney neobkhodimosti [Jeopardy as a Condition of Inflicting Harm]. Nauchnyy vestnik Omskoy akademii MVD Rossii, no 3 (42), pp. 18-21.
Voroshilova A.V. (2010) Zashchita chesti, dostoinstva i delovoy reputatsii fizicheskikh i yuridicheskikh lits v usloviyakh sovremennosti [Protection of Honour and Business reputation in Modern Conditions]. Aktual'nye problemy gumanitarnykh i estestvennykh nauk, no 2, pp. 182-184.
Copyright (c) 2016 Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.













