CC BY
55
3.4. REGULATION OF LIABILITY FOR EXECUTION OF AN ORDER OR INSTRUCTION DURING THE SOVIET PERIOD
Ushakov Egor Yur’evich, master student Vladivostok State University of Economics and Service.
Annotation: The article deals with the regulation of the responsibility for the execution of orders or instructions to the Soviet period. The author compares different approaches to the study of issues related to rules on the execution of orders or instructions, in addition, identifies factors which have a direct impact on the process of the formation of the institution. In this article, the author attempts to uncover the underlying causes and characteristics of the formation and development of the institution of execution of an order or orders in this period of the Soviet time.
Keywords: criminal legislation, the institution of execution of an order or instruction, The Soviet period, the order system of subordination, military officials, legal document.
РЕГЛАМЕНТАЦИЯ ОТВЕТСТВЕННОСТИ ЗА ИСПОЛНЕНИЕ ПРИКАЗА ИЛИ РАСПОРЯЖЕНИЯ В СОВЕТСКИЙ ПЕРИОД ВРЕМЕНИ
Ушаков Егор Юрьевич, магистрант ВГУЭС. Место учебы: Владивостокский государственный
университет экономики и сервиса. Специальность 12.00.08 Уголовное право и криминология; уголовно-исполнительное право
Аннотация: Статья посвящена вопросам регламентации ответственности за исполнение приказа или распоряжения в советский период времени. Автор сопоставляет различные подходы к исследованию проблем, связанных с нормами об исполнении приказа или распоряжения; кроме того, выявляет факторы, оказавшие непосредственное влияние на процесс становления рассматриваемого института. В данной статье автором предпринята попытка раскрыть основные причины и особенности становления и развития института исполнения приказа или распоряжения в указанном периоде советского времени.
Ключевые слова: уголовное законодательство,
институт исполнения приказа или распоряжения, Советский период, приказная система подчиненности, воинские должностные лица, нормативно-правовой акт.
The contemporary Russian criminal legislation contains the institution of execution of an order or instruction which had its own way of development and its own history. A well-known writer, Yakub Kolas, once told that without studying the past and the present we cannot foresee the future1. We cannot but agree with this idea, because in order to explore any contemporary criminal law institution it's necessary to examine its history of development to find the factors which directly influenced the process of its formation. This retrospective approach of studying the criminal law institution of execution of an order or
1 M.V. Korol, Glass Window of Wisdom: Aphorisms, Pithy Sayings, 54 Dicta/ M.V. Korol. 2nd edition. Minsk.:Polymya, 1991, p. 145.
instruction will allow to highlight the contradictions, arising in the order system of subordination, and to take this into consideration when improving the current criminal law.
The Soviet period takes a specific place in the development of the execution of an order or instruction legislation. This feature was reflected in the provisions of the first Penal Codes of the RSFSR of 1922 and 19262.
The Penal Code of the RSFSR of 1922 had an independent chapter VII, named “Military offences”3. Besides this special chapter covering military crimes, the first The Penal Code of the RSFSR of 1922 included some separate military official corpus delicti. The basic part of military corpus delicti, covered by the Penal Code of the RSFSR of 1922, provided qualified liability for offences committed during time of war, military operations and during a combat. In examining the institution of execution of an order or instruction the three articles of this criminal code are the most interesting, namely 202,203 and 208, which covered exclusively the citizens holding military or naval offices. Punishment for these offences was often imposed by the judicial bodies “according to their social sense of justice”. A legal definition of military officials, i.e. the subjects of these offences, was not given by this legal document.
It should be stressed that according to Article 202 of the Penal Code of the RSFSR of 1922 (PC RSFSR) criminal liability of a serviceman was determined for non-execution of an order if it (the order)
a) was legally enforced;
b) was given to a subordinate;
c) issued from a commander. According to the general rule an offender faced imprisonment for a term not less than a year strictly isolated. The same offence committed under qualifying circumstances was punished more severely, sometimes with capital punishment. As a circumstance the legislator defined committing an offence in time of war.
It's interesting to note that if there was an evident irresponsibility or ignorance of a guilty person the offence committed by him was punished according to the rules of disciplinary charter, criminal liability excluded. In this privileged corpus delicti we can say that the legislator specified mitigating circumstances for disciplinary liability to be imposed upon the guilty person:
a) clear irresponsibility when executing an order;
b) ignorance in respect of executing an order. These very circumstances were mentioned in the first edition of Article 25 PC RSFSR of 1922, containing a full list of circumstances which can be compared with our up-to-date notion of both mitigating and aggravating circumstances.
In Article 203 of the PC RSFSR of 1922 the legislator fixed the liability for resistance to execute legally enforceable military order or instruction. The main characteristic feature of this norm is that it refers to Article 86 of the PC RSFSR of 1922. An offence committed in the combat situation even without violence was punished according to Part1, Art.86, PC RSFSR of 1922.
2 E. Yu. Ushakov Execution of an order or disposition: a historical sketch of establishing liability in the period of the RSFSR Criminal Code in 1922 and 1926. // «Black Holes» in Russian Legislation.
2013. №4. a 95.
3 About Enforcing the Penal Code of the RSFSR (together with the
Penal Code of the RSFSR): the Decree of All Union Central Executive
Committee, 01.06.1922// SU RSFSR. 1922. № 15. art.153
Article 208 of the PC RSFSR of 1922 provided liability of a serviceman if he violates guard duty regulations and legally issued specific orders and instructions to develop these regulations, in case this violation did not result in any harmful consequences. According to the general rule, the servicemen were punished by one year term of imprisonment or in accordance with the rules of disciplinary charter.
The following points were defined as essential elements of this offence: location of the guard and harmful consequences against which this guard was established, as the most essential elements - committing an offence in time of war and during a combat. At the same time an offence committed with the most essential elements but under mitigating circumstances, was punished with less severe penalty up to strict isolation for a term of not less than 3 years.
The comments regulated the issues of imposing punishment upon a guilty person when the rules of guard duty were violated in assistance to another person to commit a crime.
In October 31, 1924 the Central Executive Committee of the Communist Party of the USSR adopted the Regulations of Military Crimes4 (further on - rMc 1924) which, with several changes, rendered Chapter VII “Military Crimes” included in the Penal Code of the RSFSR of 1922. The Regulations of Military Crimes of 1924 were significant as they were the first all Soviet Union acts fixing the norms of martial penal legislation. The Provisions reproduced the articles of the PC RSFSR of 1922 which provided the liability for offences dealing with resistance to execute legally issued military order or instruction as well as with the non-execution of a legally issued order5.
Thus, Article 2 of the Regulations of Military Crimes of
1924 stipulated the liability for resistance to execute legally issued military order or instruction. In contrast with Article 203 PC RSFSR 1922, this article was not referenced. Also the legislation widened the list of essential circumstances aggravating punishment. Now it included not only committing the offence while at combat but also committing illegal violent action toward a commander, this caused death penalty imposed upon the guilty person.
Article 3 of the RMC 1924 stipulated the liability of a serviceman for non-execution of a legal service order. In comparison with Article 202 of the PC RSFSR 1922, the essential corpus delicti was altered. Thus, a capital punishment was imposed upon a person only if nonexecution of an order took place at combat and caused serious harmful consequences for combat activities. In the PC RSFSR 1922 it was not necessary for harmful consequences to arise in order to impose capital punishment.
Article 3 of the RMC 1924 excluded such circumstance as “clear ignorance” from the circumstances mitigating punishment, necessary to use the rules of disciplinary charter. In this edition the privileged corpus delicti was defined as follows: “If non-execution of a legal order was
4 About Military Offences; the Decree of the USSR Central Executive Committee, 31.10.1924// Code of Laws USSR. 1924. № 24. art.207
5 E. Yu. Ushakov Execution of an order or disposition: a historical sketch of establishing liability in the period of the RSFSR Criminal Code in 1922 and 1926. // «Black Holes» in Russian Legislation. 2013. №4. C. 96.
due to clear ignorance, the rules of disciplinary charter are used”6.
In comparison with Article 208 of the PC RSFSR 1922, in Article 11 of the RMC 1924, regulating liability of servicemen for violating rules of guard duty and legally issued specific orders and instructions to develop these regulations, the comments were excluded. The comments the legislator defined the issues of imposing punishment upon a guilty person when the violation of the rules of guard duty was committed as assistance to another person to commit a crime. The list of penalties for this offence was extended by one more type of punishment, namely, assignment to penal military units. Article 208 of the PC RSFSR 1922 did not include such type of penalty.
The chronological order of the articles was changed. In the RMC 1924 non-execution of an order by a serviceman followed the provision about the resistance to execute a legally issued military order or instruction. Presumably the legislation stipulated higher degree of public danger of the above-mentioned corpus delicti.
We cannot but pay attention to the regulation of the activity of Russian militia, the service which was regulated in the Soviet period of 1925 by the Regulation of the service in the workers' and peasants' militia. In that period of time the militia exercised military discipline and subsubordination and was regulated in its activity by charters and rules adopted for the Red Army, which prescribed not to execute a clear criminal order. Special attention should be paid to Item 10 of the Regulation of the service in the workers' and peasants' militia. It stipulated the following: “militia serviceman, who received a criminal order, is to report about it, without executing it, to a superior commander, in order of subordination, and in proper circumstances to report to an appropriate representative body, guided by the necessity to prevent a possibility of an offence in the fastest way.” Thus, a commander was to be responsible for the consequences of his order. A subordinate's duty was to prevent committing an offence. In other words, a procedure of refusal to commit a criminal order was fixed, nevertheless, we cannot but agree with Yu.V.Starostina, saying that “this normative act lacked the criteria of intellect, demonstrating that the executor realized a criminal nature of an action, that is, an objective criterion was used to evaluate the criminality of an order. Here a question arises: will a refusal to execute an order be legal if an executor believed an order to be criminal by mistake?”8
According to Item 17 of the Disciplinary charter of the Workers' and Peasants' militia (approved by the People's Commissariat of Home Affairs on the 7th of July, 1926), a militiaman receiving an order directing to commit a criminal action, was to report immediately to the next superior person in order of subordination or to prosecution supervision body or, in case these are not available, to report to the chairmen or one of the members of the nearest Executive Committee9. In case a militiaman thought this received order to be though, not criminal but
6 About Military Offences; the Decree of the USSR Central Executive Committee, 31.10.1924// Code of Laws USSR. 1924. № 24. art.207
7 About Enforcing the Provision of Service in the Workers’ and Peasants’ Militia: Decree of the All Union Central Executive Committee, the Council of People's Commissars, 28.09.1925// SU RSFSR. 1925. №68. art. 539.
8 Yu. V. Starostina. Execution of an Order or Instruction as a Circumstance Excluding the Criminality of an Action. Dissertation of a Candidate of Law Science. Ryazan, 2001. p. 21
9 Current militia instructions. 2nd edition. M., 1928.p. 515-521.
not consistent with the law, he had to report about it to the commander who issued the order, and if the order was confirmed - to execute it. (This provision was reproduced in Item14 of the Rules of Internal Militia Service, sanctioned by the People's Commissariat of Home Affairs in March 5, 1926, but not included in the Disciplinary charter of 1926.) A militiaman who executed an order bore an equal liability with the commander excluding the execution of a criminal order. Again we agree with Yu.V.Starostina who says that “Thus, this normative document besides the procedure of refusal to commit a criminal order contained the procedure of reacting to an order which, though is not illegal, but contradicts the law”10.
January 1, 1927 a new Penal Code of the RSFSR was enforced with the resolution of the All-Union Central Executive Committee of November 22, 192611; Chapter IX “Military Offences” included articles regulating the execution of an order or instruction. Three articles of this Penal Code of the RSFSR defined the norms of executing an order or instruction, reproducing the corresponding articles of the Regulations of Military Crimes of 1924.
Besides, the chronological order of the norms was
followed. Article 193.2 provided the liability for resistance to execute legally issued military order or instruction; Article 193.3 fixed the liability for non-execution of a legal service order by a serviceman in the time of combat;
Article 193.11 regulated the liability for violation of guard
duty regulations and legally issued specific orders and instructions to develop these regulations, in case this violation did not result in any harmful consequences. It's worth stressing that Article 193.11 excluded assigning to penal units as a penalty which had been included in the Regulations of Military Crimes of 1924.
July 27, 1927 the Central Executive Committee of the USSR and The Council of People's Commissars of the USSR adopted the Regulation of Military Crimes12, which with some amendments existed till 1959. This document excluded from Article 2 “Non-execution of a service order” “legality” as an essential element of an order, qualifying and privileged elements of the corpus delicti being added. There arose some debates about the necessity to include “legality” in the corpus delicti of non-execution of an order.
Meanwhile, in October 12, 1940 the Disciplinary charter of the Red Army was enforced. Article 8 of it stipulated the following obligatory rule: “An order of a commander and a superior is the law for a subordinate. It is to be obeyed implicitly, precisely and in time. Non-execution of an order is a crime and is tried by the court-martial.” 13Article 3 of this Disciplinary charter fixed the provision: “The Soviet military discipline obliges: to know the oath of enlistment firmly and follow it precisely and implicitly, as well as the service charter, instructions and all orders and instructions of the commanders and superiors; to strictly obey the
10 Yu. V. Starostina. Execution of an Order or Instruction as a Circumstance Excluding the Criminality of an Action. Dissertation of a Candidate of Law Science. Ryazan, 2001 ,p. 21-22.
11 About Enforcing the Penal Code of the RSFSR (together with the Penal Code of the RSFSR): the Decree of All Union Central Executive Committee, 22.11.1926// Code of Laws RSFSR. 1926. № 80. art. 600.
12 The Provision of Military Crimes: the Decree of the USSR Central Executive Committee, the Council of People's Commissars, 27.07.1927// Code of Laws USSR. 1927. № 50. art.505
13 Disciplinary charter of the Red Army of 1940. URL:
http://bdsa.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=135
(date of address: 28.06.2013)
Army order and deter the others from violating it; to exercise all service duties and assignments conscientiously; to strictly keep military and state secrets; to protect the military possessions and national property”14. It is evident that the possibility to appeal or to contradict the legality of the issued order for a subordinate was excluded. The Soviet military discipline directed a subordinate to execute implicitly any order of a commander or a superior.
The criminal legislation providing the liability for offences against the order of subordination and military regulation terms didn't suffer any changes during the Great Patriotic War15.
Thus, the retrospective research of the Russian penal legislation dealing with the execution of an order or instruction in the Soviet period demonstrates the significance of the problem of obeying commands and instructions, issued by the superiors, and lets us to extract some features of its formation and evolution.
The historical analysis of the institution of execution of an order or instruction showed that in the course of time the legislator constantly developed the provisions regulating the liability for offences against the commanding order of subordination. Apart from a particular chapter covering military offences, the first Soviet Penal Code of the RSFSR 1922 contained separate corpus delicti of military service offences. The Regulation of Military Crimes of 1924 was of great importance as it was the first nation-wide document, establishing the norms of martial penal legislation. The articles, regulating the execution of an order or instruction in the Penal Code of the RSFSR 1926, reproduced the articles of the Regulation of Military Crimes of 1924.
It should be said that the development of the legislation dealing with the execution of orders greatly depends upon particular historical events. No doubt, it is impossible to realize the substance of contemporary legislation concerning the liability for execution of orders and instructions without historical research of the Soviet period legislation.
Reference list:
1. About Enforcing the Provision of Service in the Workers' and Peasants' Militia: Decree of the All Union Central Executive Committee, the Council of People's Commissars, 28.09.1925// SU RSFSR. 1925. №68. art. 539.
2. About Enforcing the Penal Code of the RSFSR (together with the Penal Code of the RSFSR): the Decree of All Union Central Executive Committee, 01.06.1922// Code of Laws RSFSR. 1922. № 15. art. 153.
3. About Enforcing the Penal Code of the RSFSR (together with the Penal Code of the RSFSR): the Decree of All Union Central Executive Committee, 22.11.1926// Code of Laws RSFSR. 1926. № 80. art. 600.
4. About Military Offences; the Decree of the USSR Central Executive Committee, 31.10.1924// Code of Laws USSR. 1924. № 24. art.207
5. Current militia instructions. 2nd edition. M., 1928. 618 pp.
14 Disciplinary charter of the Red Army of 1940. URL: http://bdsa.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=135 (date of address: 28.06.2013)
I. I. Israilov, The Historical and Legal Aspect of Formation of the Legislation about the Offences Against the Order of Subordination and Military Charter Terms: the Soviet Period// Law in the Armed Forces-Military Legal Survey. 2010. № 10. PP.118.
6. Disciplinary charter of the Red Army of 1940. URL: http://bdsa.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13
5 (date of address: 28.06.2013)
7. E. Yu. Ushakov Execution of an order or disposition: a historical sketch of establishing liability in the period of the RSFSR Criminal Code in 1922 and 1926. // «Black Holes» in Russian Legislation. 2013. №4. C. 95-98.
8. I. I. Israilov, The Historical and Legal Aspect of Formation of the Legislation about the Offences Against the Order of Subordination and Military Charter Terms: the Soviet Period// Law in the Armed Forces- Military Legal Survey. 2010. № 10. PP.117-120.
9. M.V. Korol, Glass Window of Wisdom: Aphorisms, Pithy Sayings, 54 Dicta/ M.V. Korol. 2nd edition. Minsk.:Polymya, 1991. 414pp.
10. The Provision of Military Crimes: the Decree of the USSR Central Executive Committee, the Council of People's Commissars, 27.07.1927// Code of Laws USSR. 1927. № 50. art.505.
11. Yu. V. Starostina. Execution of an Order or Instruction as a Circumstance Excluding the Criminality of an Action. Dissertation of a Candidate of Law Science. Ryazan, 2001. 182pp.
РЕЦЕНЗИЯ
на статью магистранта ВГУЭС Ушакова Егор Юрьевича на TeMy:«REGULATION OF LIABILITY FOR EXECUTION OF AN ORDER OR INSTRUCTION DURING THE SOVIET PERIOD»
В рецензируемой статье автор дает подробный анализ насущным вопросам законодательного отражения института исполнения приказа или распоряжения в период действия уголовных кодексов 1922 г. и 1926 г. Как положительный факт можно отметить то, что в данной работе автор уделяет особое внимание реализации ретроспективного подхода в изучении уголовно-правового института исполнения приказа или распоряжения. Автор акцентирует внимание на основных проблемных аспектах отражения института исполнения приказа, обладающих актуальностью и требующих научного разрешения. Во-первых, автор справедливо отмечает, что в УК РСФСР 1922 г. законодатель выделил в качестве самостоятельной главу VII «Воинские преступления», в которой содержались отдельные составы преступлений, представляющие интерес в рамках исследуемого института. Во-вторых, автор вполне обоснованно обращает внимание на то, что 31 октября 1924 г. ЦИК СССР было принято Положение о воинских преступлениях, которое с некоторыми изменениями, воспроизводило главу VII «Воинские преступления». В-третьих, важным в статье является рассмотрение Е.Ю.Ушаковым актов, регулирующих деятельность российской милиции, в которой закреплялась воинская дисциплина и соподчинение, в советский период
1925 и 1926 г., Важным в статье является рассмотрение УК РСФСР 1926 г., в трех статьях которого были заключены нормы об исполнении приказа или распоряжения. Автор подчеркивает, что в данных статьях воспроизводилась формулировка статей Положения о воинских преступлениях 1924 г., при этом автор анализирует соответствующие изменения.
Все содержание статьи логически взаимосвязано и подтверждено цитатами из авторитетных источников. Сделанные автором выводы в достаточной степени обоснованы и достоверны. Оформление и содержание статьи отвечает требованиям предъявляемым ВАК России к такого рода работам.
Научная статья Ушакова Е. Ю. может быть рекомендована к опубликованию в открытой печати.
Научный руководитель -к.и.н., доцент кафедры мировой экономики и международных отношений Влади восто кского госуда рственно го университета экономики и сервиса
Н. В. Котляр
