No abstract

Criminal law is traditionally viewed as a branch of public law. Until recently, the category of “dispositivity” in the Russian theory of criminal law had not even been considered. However, it is argued that the development and reflection of dispositivity fundamentals in the criminal law shows the level of protection of law-abiding citizens and also serves as an indicator of activity of legal subjects in the field of criminal justice. The article attempts to define the concept of dispositivity in Criminal law, and explore its theoretical and applied aspects through conceptual (political and legal) and instrumental approaches. As a part of the conceptual (political and legal) approach dispositivity is treated as the common grounds of the field of legal regulation. As a part of the instrumental approach dispositivity is regarded as a method of legal regulation, property legal norms, as well as the mode of legal regulation. From the point of legal methodology we can speak of dispositivity in the Russian criminal law, since there are no «pure» or distinct fields of private or public law. Simultaneously with the imperative method of legal regulation, there may be the legal grounds for the dispositive legal regulation, and vice versa. The article also examines such manifestations of dispositivity in the Russian criminal law as self-defense, detention of the offender, a reasonable risk, reconciliation, prosecution at the request of a commercial organization or with its consent, the consent of a person to commit action which can present a risk of HIV infection, the consent of the victim to enter into marriage with the defendant.

This paper summarizes the key issues of rights protection of indigenous minor peoples of the Russian North (Khanty and Mansi), who lead a traditional lifestyle, exploiting their ancestral lands: hunting, fishing, and using other resources. In the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Area, individuals are often prosecuted for illegal felling (Article 260, Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), as well as for illegal acquisition, transfer, sale, possession, transportation or carrying of explosives or explosive devices (Article 222.1, RF Criminal Code). However, land management allows for the general public to perform these activities as well, not only for the relatives or friends of the owner of these ancestral lands. Following the casework, the author has found that in a significant number of cases, the investigation fails to establish either the direct ownership of items limited in circulation (gunpowder and ammunition) or specific individuals who performed the felling. Such being the case, the legal owner of the land or its part is held liable. The purpose of this article is to justify the need for amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, i. e. providing for exempting those individuals from criminal liability, who have committed acts, set forth formally, sustaining their traditional lifestyle in the North. This new law will allow the protection of indigenous minorities of the North from inconsistent criminal reprisals and to preserve their cultural practices.

The purpose of the paper is to justify the need to make amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, i.e. providing for exempting those individuals from criminal liability, who have committed acts, set forth formally, sustaining their traditional lifestyle in the North. The paper summarizes key issues of rights protection of indigenous minor peoples of the North (Khanty or Mansi), who sustain a traditional lifestyle, dealing with exploitation of ancestral lands: hunting, fishing, use of other resources. In the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug, it is very common when individuals are being prosecuted for illegal felling (Article 260, Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), as well as for illegal acquisition, transfer, sale, possession, transportation or carrying of explosives or explosive devices (Article 222.1, Criminal Code of RF). However, using these lands make it possible for the general public to do so too, and it is not only for relatives or friends of the owner of ancestral lands. Following the casework, it has been found that in a significant number of cases the investigation fails to establish either the direct ownership of items limited in circulation (gunpowder, ammunition) or specific individuals who carried out the felling in a particular place. Such being the case, the legal owner of the land or its part is held liable. This new law will protect the indigenous peoples of the North from inconsistent criminal repression and preserve their cultural practices.