CC BY
12Strategy of Uzbekistan №1 (2020) / ISSN 2181-2535 Journal home page:http://journal.strategy.uz
^■■nf 1 Vfri linn DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.24412/2181-2535-2020-1-24-27
ANTI-CORRUPTION AUTHORITY: WHAT SHOULD IT BE?
According to World Bank studies, the annual volume of bribes worldwide exceeds $1 trillion. Apparently, in order to uncompromisingly combat corruption, first of all, it is necessary to unite each state and the world community, to streamline legal, economic, political and social aspects of this area. Corruption is seen as an extremely dangerous factor that seriously hinders the development of states that have chosen a democratic path.
Therefore, Uzbekistan has been pursuing a resolute and uncompromising fight against corruption. The republic adopted the Law 'On Combating Corruption', established the Republican Interdepartmental Commission on Combating Corruption, and approved the State Program on Combating Corruption,
Amid the current globalization, accelerating regional and interstate integration, corruption creates a number of problems in all countries, threatening the international community. According to the UN and the International Monetary Fund, the global economy is losing up to $1.5-2.6 trillion a year due to corruption.
which have ensured the effective implementation of measures aimed at preventing corruption offenses in the country.
In a short period of time, five regulatory legal acts have been adopted in Uzbekistan to improve the legal mechanisms for combating corruption, including the laws 'On the distribution of legal information and ensuring access to it', 'On Administrative Procedures', 'On Public Control', 'On Public Procurement', as well as a number of presidential decrees.
As admitted by President Shavkat Mirziyoyev in his Address to the Oliy Majlis on January 24, 2020, corruption in our society and its various manifestations threaten the development of the state.
24
Strategy of Uzbekistan
The Head of Uzbekistan initiated the establishment of a separate state body to combat corruption, accountable to the President and the parliament, which would be responsible for combating corruption in order to ensure smooth implementation of the tasks.
Development of the draft Presidential Decree on the establishment of a separate state authority to combat corruption has been already underway. The draft should determine the legal foundations for the organization and operation of this body, its tasks and functions, competence and responsibilities. In this sense, it is relevant to analyze some progressive foreign practices in this area.
The analysis of best practices in this area shows that the institutional approach to combating corruption has several advantages.
The Address also pointed out to the impossibility to create a real business and investment environment if the scourge is not eradicated. Ultimately, no branch of society will develop.
"Numerous appeals to the President, as well as reviews in the press and social networks show that entrepreneurs are still facing corruption in such areas as distribution of land, cadastre, construction, licensing, customs, banking, public procurement, the Address says. "If all strata of the population, the best experts are not involved in the fight against corruption, then all members of our society will not be vaccinated with the "honesty vaccine", and we will not be able to achieve our high frontiers. We must move from fighting the consequences of corruption to preventing it."
INTERNATIONAL PRACTICES =
It will ensure an integrated approach to the problem, and help to effectively implement the objectives of reducing corruption in society. Successful examples of specialized state anticorruption structures normally cover three main areas of activity: 1 ) preventive measures against corruption; 2) investigative powers, supervisory functions; 3) independence from other departments in their activities,
accountability solely to the highest instances state power.
following functions: conduct investigative activities, develop anti-corruption policies, analytical activities, help to prevent crimes, interact with civil society, collect and analyze information, monitor the progress of anti-corruption programs.
Such a model is usually associated with the Hong Kong Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau of Singapore. The Singapore Bureau consists of three divisions: investigative, reference and information, and support department. The investigative unit is the largest one. It is responsible for the operations of the Bureau. The Singapore experience has been implemented in a number of countries. For instance, in December 2005, Poland adopted a law on the establishment of the Central
Anti-Corruption
COMBATING
CORRUPTION
According to studies by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the model of multi-purpose anticorruption agencies with the powers of law enforcement bodies is the clearest example of a universal approach. Departments of this type carry out the
Bureau, which performs both police (criminal prosecution) and information-analytical functions. The Sejm Commission for Special Bodies of Poland oversees the activities of the Bureau. Information about this is confidential.
Similar experience was used in such post-Soviet countries as Latvia, Lithuania, and Ukraine. In Latvia, there is a Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau. The legislators have provided a fairly effective mechanism of parliamentary control over compliance with anti-corruption laws and the activities of the Bureau itself. They also apply the generally accepted practice of deputy inquiries, invitation of the heads of the mentioned law enforcement agencies to relevant parliamentary committees, ad
26
Strategy of Uzbekistan
hoc commissions, etc.
As previously mentioned, preventive functions of a specialized anti-corruption body are also a priority area of activity. There are the countries with extensive experience of running specialized anti-corruption bodies, where the anti-corruption system is focused on prevention: France, Romania, India, the Republic of Korea, Finland, Norway, Denmark. France, for example, has established the Central Service for the Prevention of Corruption, which is an interdepartmental body under the auspices of the French Ministry of Justice. In Finland, the Ombudsman of Justice, appointed by the President of Finland and independent of other public authorities, is involved in the fight against corruption.
Effective operation of an anticorruption body largely depends on its local units. The experience of Germany and Austria suggests that local links of anti-corruption structures also play an important role. In Germany, special anticorruption units (usually departments) in federal and state ministries and departments are the basic link in the system of preventive anti-corruption measures of the state administration. In Austria, a special anti-corruption prosecutor's office is headquartered in Vienna with branches in major Austrian
INTERNATIONAL PRACTICES
cities.
Ultimately, a specialized anti-corruption body should have an explicit legislative framework that should specify as follows: competence, position in the structure of government bodies; the procedure for the appointment and removal of the head of the institution; internal organizational structure; tasks; jurisdiction; rights and obligations; budget; staffing rules (rules for the selection of personnel, in some cases, provisions on their immunity, etc.), procedures for interaction with other institutions (especially law enforcement and regulatory authorities), accountability and reporting system, etc.
It is supposed that taking the above considerations into account when implementing the initiative to establish a specialized anti-corruption body will further improve the regulatory and institutional framework for combating corruption in the country, as well as introduce an effective anti-corruption mechanism.
In conclusion, it should be noted that the establishment of an independent governmental anti-corruption body is stipulated in paragraph 53 of the State Program 2020 as part of the implementation of the second priority area of the Action Strategy 2017-2021 aimed at the further reform of the judicial and legal system. The Presidential Decree emphasizes the importance of the comprehensive study of international experience in defining the legal framework, tasks and functions, powers and obligations of this body and the reflection of its major aspects.
