CC BY
46THE NOTiON AND iNDiCATiONS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT TECHNOLOGY
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14420/en.2013A6 web-site: http://bar-association.ru/
Irina Kolesnik, LLD, Ass. Professor at Civil Law Chair, Rostov Branch of the Russian
Academy of Law
Summary. The subject of this study is the genesis of law enforcement
technology as a type of legal technology or a subtype of law enforcement technology (or technology of making individual acts). Law enforcement technology may exist as a separate entity having specific indications and elements segregating it to a special legal technology system.
Keywords: legal technique, law enforcement technology, legal technology, legal
technology system, legal technique tools.
It was not long ago that law enforcement technology began to distinguish itself as a separate entity with specific indicia and elements segregating it as a special independent legal technology system as an independent type of legal technology. In particular, N.A. Vlasenko's works distinguish between norm-setting, law expository, systematisation, and science application technologies as well as the technology of preparation and adoption of individual acts1. Some scholars, such as V.N. Kartashov and S.V. Bakhvalov, separate law-making, interpretative and law systematisation technologies2, others, such as T.V. Kashanina, include technology in the structure of legal technique, also separating, based on that criterion, law-making technique, technique of publishing of statutory acts, technique of statutory acts systematization, interpretative technique and law enforcement technique, corresponding with which are the same types of technologies3, the “not splitting” techniques and technologies in those legal situations.
It is worth noting that in his classification of legal technologies according to types of legal activity, V.N. Kartashov not only separates law enforcement technology into a distinct type as other scholars do, but names that technology “law enforcement (law realization)”. He doesn't include the technologies of law
1 See: Vlasenko N.A. Zakonodatelnaja tekhnologija [Legislative technology (Theory. Experience. Rules). Teaching guide]. Irkutsk, 2001. P. 9.
2 See: Kartashov V.N. Juridicheskaja tekhnika, taktika, strategija I tekhnologija (k voprosu o sootnosh-enii) [Legal technique, tactics, strategy and technology: (on the issue of their correlation)] // Problemy juridicheskoj tekhniki [Problems of legal technique: Collection of articles] / Ed. by V.M. Baranov. Nizhny Novgorod, 2000. P. 18; Bakhvalov S.V. Zakonodatelnaja tekhnologija [Legal technology (some problems of theory and methodology): Synopsis of a LLD thesis]. Nizhny Novgorod, 2006. P. 6.
3 See: Kashanina T.V. Juridicheskaya tekhnika [Legal Technique]. М., 2007. P. 85.
execution, use and observance as versions of law enforcement technologies, however.
Some scholars, such as S.S. Alekseyev and R.A. Romashov, include law enforcement technology under the category of another technology which is more extensional in content.
Professor S.S. Alekseyev, classifying legal technique (a component element of which is technology as an aggregation of ways of use of tools of legal technique) by types of legal acts made with the help of its instruments, separates only two types of techniques: legislative (law-making) and the technique of individual acts1, in which he includes the development of law enforcement acts, that is, law enforcement technique and technology.
At the same time R.A. Romashov separates four basic technological structures of law: technologies of formally legal and socially legal law-making, and technologies of regulatory and protective law enforcement. The basis of his classification, as well as of aforementioned scholars' classifications, are the types of legal activity served by legal technology instruments - those of law-making and law enforcement. By 'formally legal law-making technology' R.A. Romashov means the initial laws making expressed as the adoption of regulatory legal acts, and by 'socially legal', derivative law making consisting of the issuance of acts of law enforcement2.
In this way Romashov practically considers law enforcement technology to be a component part of law enforcement technologies, in the structure of which he includes various legally-technological tools that are qualified by us as components of law enforcement technology. These are “practices of collection and analysis of factual materials, a selection of rules liable to be used in a specific case, taking a law enforcement decision and ensuring realization of that decision by those to whom it is addressed”3. Here the author simply enumerates technologies separated by some scholars in legal science as functional stages of law application, the last of which is usually not included in the composition of functional stages but considered a procedural stage.
In the separation of law enforcement technology as a type of legal technology or subtype of law realisation technology (or technology of making individual acts), the possibility is recognised of the existence of law enforcement technology as a separate entity, having specific indicia and elements segregating it into a specific legal technology system.
The question also arises of the major classification criteria of law enforcement technologies. We suppose that the major criteria at a given stage in studying the problem, must be a classification criteria determined by the specifics of the law enforcement activity itself. Of course, it is possible to classify law enforcement technologies according to indicia determined by the distinctions of technology itself: by the degree of normative regulation of structural elements content, by volume, by degree of stability (temporary and long-term technologies), by degree
1 See: Alekseyev S.S. Obshcaja teorija prava [General Theory of Law]. In 2 vol. M., 1982. V. 2. P. 272.
2 See: Romashov R.A. Juridicheskaja tekhnika i juridicheskaja tekhnologija [Legal technique and legal technology: some problems of theoretical modeling and practical implementation] // Legal Technique: Issues of Theory and Practice: Proceedings of the Interuniversity Scientific and Technical Conference. St. Petersburg, July 17, 2005. SPb., 2005. P. 85.
3 Ibid. P. 94.
of individualisation (general and particular, individual) etc. For classifications of that sort more particular thematic legal technology material is necessary, and this is as yet incomplete or not enough.
So far as is evidenced by the functional direction and purposes of creation of legal technology and its law enforcement, the major classification criterion must be the types of law enforcement activity for which the law enforcement technology was created. Let us thus consider the types of law enforcement activity that can serve as criteria for the construction of various typical classifications of law enforcement technology.
In particular, law enforcement activity, as was noted, is specific and nonuniform, and the legal science separates, according to the way of use of law, the following kinds of law application: operative, executive and law-enforcement; regulatory and law-enforcement1; controlling and affirmative, law-enforcement and jurisdictional2; executive and permitting (regulatory and acknowledging and law-enforcement), incentive and jurisdictional3; permitting and administrative (operative and executive), controlling and supervisory and jurisdictional4; positive and jurisdictional; executive and administrative and law-enforcement5; judicial, regulatory and administrative6 etc.
As seen from the above (far from complete) list of various types of law enforcement activity by the way of its realisation, there is no united position on this issue at a doctrinal level. A comparison of the classifications shows that scholars for the most part separate jurisdictional (sometimes included in law enforcement), permitting and administrative (or, as it is sometimes called, executive and permitting, operative and executive, incentive, regulatory), and law enforcement (sometimes included in executive and permitting and controlling and supervisory ways) law application.
Since that criterion, in our opinion, is the basic one in the classification of legal activity into types, because the peculiarity of the type of classification of legal activity created that way “is conditional upon peculiarities of competence of subjects to law and specifics of legal procedure, in the form of which the activity itself is executed”7, we suppose that it can be taken as a basis for the classification of law enforcement technologies.
Taking into account the specific character of law enforcement we suppose that within the frame of law enforcement technology it is also necessary to construct a classification of technologies determined by the subject of law application, because the composition of legal technology tools used in any type of law enforcement activity depends largely on the competence of the subject of
1 See: Lazarev V.V., Lipen R.V. Teorija gosudarstva i prava [Theory of state and law]. M., 1999. P. 129.
2 See: Alekseyev S.S. Gosudarstvo i pravo: Nachalnyj kurs [State and law: Introductory course]. M.,
1996. P. 151.
3 See: Voplenko N.N. Realizatsija prava [Enforcement of law: Teaching guide]. Volgograd, 2001. P.
28..
4 See:Idem. Sotsialisticheskaja zakonnost i primenenie prava [Socialist law and enforcement of law]. Saratov, 1983. P. 82-88.
5 See: Kashanina T.V. Op. cit. P. 399.
6 See: CherdantsevA.F. Teorija gosudarstva i prava [Theory of state and law]. M., 2002. P. 259.
7 See: Voplenko N.N. Op. cit. P. 82.
that activity.
The specifics of law enforcement activities are its tough procedural and processual organisation. The whole process of law enforcement is carried out not arbitrarily, on the subjective judgment of law enforcers, but in specially set processual and procedural forms, using procedures and tools permitting people to take in the factual situation in detail, separate legal facts, construe them properly and, using the specific provision of law, determine properly, and formalising in the act of law enforcement, the obligations and responsibility of the subjects of jural relation being in place. As a result of law enforcement, particularisation of the provisions of legal rules, transfer of rather general legal instructions and models on direct participants of factual relations in exactly stipulated in individual law enforcement act and binding enactments are carried out. Appreciating the necessity of law enforcers observing the principles of legality, responsiveness and efficiency of law enforcement activity, the rule prescriber produced a procedure determining the order of exigencies for the transfer of legal rules at the level of particular holders of rights and legal obligations. In connection with this, the law enforcement process becomes task-oriented and less influenced by random factors, and this assists in the consolidation of legality and legal order in society, providing protection for a person's interests1.
In other words, an additional obligatory structural element of all types of law enforcement technology is procedural form, the components of which are, among other things, procedural stages - stages of law enforcement activity consolidated by a common purpose.
Law enforcement technology at each of those stages is distinguished by a specific set of rules, exigencies, and procedural instruments used for the purposes of accomplishing the tasks of each such stage.
Law application, as any process, is subdivided into separate stages that are relatively independent procedures (types of activity) performed by cognizant officers and directed to the solution of a particular law enforcement task. Stages of law enforcement characterise logics and the sequence of actions during the consideration and resolution of a legal case.
Division of the law enforcement process into stages is primarily of special interest to academic theory, because it assists a deeper understanding of the essence of law enforcement as a whole, facilitates theoretical analysis of law enforcement activity, promotes scholarly research, with which it creates the possibility of the most effective use of scholarly developments and makes recommendations for the practical activities of law enforcement bodies. Each stage, being a relatively separate element and part of law enforcement activity, is strongly interrelated to the others. Only the consecutive and correct performance of each part of the aggregation of homogeneous law enforcement actions guarantees effectiveness of law enforcement as a whole.
Legal science distinguishes two groups of such stages: functional and procedural. The functional stages involve phases of the development of law
1 See: Kozhenevsky V.B. Primenenie norm prava kak osobaja forma ikh realizatsii v pravovom gosu-darstve [Application of norms of law as a special form of their realisation in a legal state] // Problemy pravoprimenenija v sovremennoj Rossii [Problems of law application in modern Russia: Collection of articles]. Omsk, 2007. P. 67.
enforcement activity in its intellectual-volition aspect directed at the solution of a particular law case. The procedural stages involve phases of performance of material, actively transforming law enforcement activity directly into the law enforcement process.
In the theory of law the issue of the composition of the functional stages of the performance of law enforcement activity is still a matter of discussion1.
It is necessary to point out that from the perspective of sectoral sciences, in particular, of the science of criminality, criminal procedure and civil procedural law, the law enforcement process amounts to real stages through which the legal case passes in its development, from the moment of making decision on its initiation (e.g., in criminal process, initiation of a criminal case, case referral under jurisdiction, preliminary investigation or inquiry, preliminary hearing, judicial investigation, oral statements of the parties, sentencing etc.).
The general theory of law, for its part, considers the stages of the law application process as a logical sequence of actions for rendering law enforcement. One thus ought to agree to a suggestion to consider the law enforcement process from both objective and subjective sides. On the objective side it is the process of legal case examination, from the system of interconnected law enforcement activities, and on the subjective side it is the process of logical change of activities necessary for the purposes of law enforcement which makes it possible to follow up the sequence of intellectual-volition activities of a law enforcer on legal qualification of the case and making a decision. The objective and the subjective sides of the law enforcement process consubstantiate inseparably and constantly2.
At a doctrinal level the following functional stages are distinguished: findings of the facts of the case, determination of legal basis of the case - selection and analysis of legal rules, solution of case and documentation of the decision taken; findings of the factual circumstances of the case, formation of the legal basis of the case, ruling of the case, state-forced realisation of the law enforcement act (additional stage); findings of factual circumstances of the case, selection of legal rules and legal qualifications of the case, assessment and interpretation of the legal rule, solution of the case, controlling and executive stage; etc.
The above lists all include three functional stages of law enforcement activity: findings of the factual basis of the case, determination of the legal basis for the case and making a decision. The stage of execution of taken decision and control over that execution is not included in functional stages by all scholars, and it mostly corresponds to the essence of the functional stages which represent the stages of development of the intellectual-volition activity of a law enforcer on the decision of a particular legal situation.
According to our reckoning, this point of view seems to be the most feasible one. The separation of law enforcement into stages, such as the verification of legal
1 See: Alekseyev S.S. Gosudarstvo ... [State...]. P. 127.
2 For more on that see: Dyuryagin I.Ya. Primenenie norm sovetskogo prava [Application of Soviet legal norms]. Sverdlovsk, 1973. P. 50-52; Lazarev V.V. Primenenie sovetskogo prava [Application of the Soviet law]. Kazan, 1972. P. 39; Nedbaylo P.E. Primenenie sovetskikh pravovykh norm [Application of Soviet rules of law]. M., 1968. P. 221; Kudryavtsev V.N. Obshchaja teorija kvalifikatsii prestuplenij [General theory of classification of crimes]. M., 1999. P. 15; Lupinskaya P.A. Reshenija v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve [Decisions in criminal proceedings]. M., 2010. P. 23; Pyanov N.A. Istina v pravopri-menitelnoj dejatelnosti [Verity in law-enforcement activity: Synopsis of a LLD thesis]. M., 1987. P. 9.
rule, its action in time, space and the scope of persons, as well as interpretation of the legal rule used is not entirely reasonable. Without verification of a legal rule and its interpretation, legal qualification of a case is impossible, and it is thus more correct to consider those stages not as independent but as making a stage of determination of a case's legal basis.
To understand the issue correctly, it should be borne in mind that particular law enforcement processes differ from each other in the composition of participants as well as in legal forms of organisation and ways of execution. In some cases, as alleged by A.S. Kategov, law enforcement looks at a simple non-recurrent act of an office holder, as an action not requiring special procedure for the learning circumstances of the reality situation considered and finding its correct legal solution. In some other cases law enforcement appears as a complicated, continuously developing series of law-exercising actions and the acts of its various participants, in which organisation and the power-wielding actions and acts of state body office holders determine its emergence, course and conclusion1. The actions indicated are based on legislative mandates and concretised in the form of corresponding documentary acts. The legal form regularises the actions of law enforcing subjects, confers legal definiteness on them and provides strict consistency of their realisation.
From a general theoretic point of view, as stated above, it is more reasonable to separate the three basic stages of the law enforcement process. But at that a connection is not negated between first and second stages, as well as between second and third ones - they determine one another and can't be executed one without the other2.
The first stage of law enforcement is the stage of determining the factual basis of the case. Depending on its complexity and the factual circumstances, is the facts are determined by various persons, and the process of their determination is an activity varying in its complexity. Legal facts differ according to the sphere of social relations of their origin and entail various consequences. Some are of positive meaning and value, and others are negative.
Any legal facts must be determined accurately. If they are not determined in full or cause doubt, law enforcement will be unfounded and unlawful, in consequence of which someone may undeservedly obtain benefits, and someone else lose them undeservedly. A.F. Cherdantsev correctly says that “determination of facts cannot be compared with setting of pillar from horizontal position to
1 See: Kategov A.S. Mekhanizm primenenia prava i pravovaja sistema sovremennoj Rossii [Mechanism of law enforcement and legal system of modern Russia (theoretical and methodological analysis)]. Dr. Jurid. Sci. Thesis. SPb., 2002. P. 180.
2 A number of scholars have highlighted the still deeper, complicating and enriching nature of law application in the process of which a law enforcer simultaneously turns to factual circumstances, and to the legal framework of case; it results in rather a difficult delimitation, in practice, of the time limits for the establishment of facts and actions of selection and analysis of legal rules, as well as with the direct interdependence and interconnection of law enforcement with legal consciousness and lawmaking. For further details see: Alekseyev S.S. Op. cit., 2006. P. 536; Ershov V.V. Teoreticheskie i prakticheskie problemy pravoponimanija, pravotvorchestva i pravoprimenenija [Theoretical and practical problems of legal consciousness, lawmaking and law enforcement] // Teoreticheskie i prakticheskie problemy pravoponimanija [Theoretical and practical problems of legal consciousness: collection of articles]. M., 2009. P. 30; Vlasenko N.A. Logicheskie osnovania juridicheskoj kvalifikatsii [Logical basis of legal qualification]. LLD Thesis. M., 2011. P. 60-63.
vertical one. Determination of facts is nothing short of the collection of information on those facts, proving their existence or absence”1. But it is necessary to note that completeness and authenticity are often of judgemental and relative nature.
Facts that are to be determined lay often in the past. The term “fact” is often used for a segment of reality limited by space and time, as well as authentic knowledge reflecting that reality.
Discovering the objective truth of a case is closely connected with proof. Finding proof comes down to the following actions: a) the detection of evidence; b) collecting and preserving information, that is documentation; c) the analysis of evidence in its totality, that is the determination of its sufficiency for the certification of facts that then will be taken as the basis of a decision.
For some decisions the law demands deduction of evidence with an explanation of why some evidence was accepted and some not. That said, conclusions about the proof of circumstances and reliability of evidence require disclosure of the factual evidence on which the decision is based.
The Decree of Plenum of RF Supreme Court “On judicial judgment” of April 29, 1996 No 1 directs: “giving evidence on the basis of which the court is satisfied that those circumstances were or were not in evidence in reality, it is necessary not just to list that evidence which, in the opinion of the court, confirms some circumstances or other, but also to embody factual evidence contained in testimony of witnesses, accused persons, injured persons, and other evidence”2. Deduction as part of a decision based on evidence with an explanation of reasons that some is the basis of conclusions and others are rejected, is a necessary condition of the decision's motivation; “law demands that evidence be provided, at that decision must explain not only why some evidence was rejected, but why other evidence was accepted as trustworthy”3. Special attention must be paid to motivation of decision when using rules stipulating reasons for the choice of decision: “at the discretion”, “in cases of necessity”, “with regard to the circumstances of the particular case”. All the indicated actions serve one purpose - the correct qualification of facts.
The next stage is determination of the case's legal basis, that is: finding a legal rule to fit the factual circumstances of the case, check its authenticity and legal force, the actions in time, in space and scope of persons, as well as interpretation of the legal rule used.
This stage is separated from the preceding stage in a creative way. In practice they are interconnected and appear united. Factual circumstances are never determined without conviction of their legal importance. Consequently, even before its final determination, the fact itself is valued from the point of view of law. The choice of legal rules or legal qualifications of the case can progress in the process of further fact finding.
Correct legal qualification as logical valuation activities directed at exposure
1 CherdantsevA.F. Op. cit. P. 250.
2 The Decree of Plenum of RF Supreme Court «On judicial judgment» of April 29, 1996 No 1 «On judicial judgment» // Bulletin of Supreme Court of RF. 1996. № 7.
3 Lupinskaya P.A. Reshenija v ugolovnom proizvodstve [Decisions in criminal proceedings]. M., 2010. P. 226; Tuzov N.A. Motivirovanie i prejudiktsija juridicheskikh aktov [Motivation and pre-judgement of judicial acts]. M. 2006.
of the legal nature of factual circumstances in accordance with the system of operative rules, predetermines successful consideration and adjudication of the case. Just as it is impossible to reach the objective truth in law application when the factual circumstances of a case are not exposed with necessary completeness and authenticity, so is impossible to get them, when having necessary facts a qualification error is made. To correctly determine the legal importance of a case's circumstances, a law enforcer must picture the law system in its totality and unity, have possibility of choice of just the legal rule (or rules) that stipulates that case, is meant for it. Incorrect legal qualification in most cases entails incorrect adjudication1. Each case on facts of legal importance must be resolved by the subjects of law enforcement on the basis of law, not on the basis of subjective discretion, otherwise law enforcement will not achieve its purpose.
It is important to note that laws and other statutory acts are valid for a significant amount of time, in which they may be supplemented, amended or repealed, and law enforcers are required to carefully follow the development of legislation, each time during an adjudication making certain the legal rule chosen is currently valid, its text corresponds with the original, and it extends its force over the persons in relation to whom the law is being enforced.
In the process of legal qualification it is also necessary to gain insight into the text of a legal rule, to make its content clear, otherwise the possibility is consciously accepted that an erroneous decision not corresponding with the will of the law-maker will be taken. Interpretation of legal rules is a special intellectual-volition activity of subjects for determination of genuine content and realisation order of subjective rights and legal obligations of participants of legal relations2. That intellectual-volition process consists of the clarification of a legal instruction and its further explanation. Explanation is a special activity for certain bodies and persons, the purpose of which is the provision of correct, uniform execution of legal rules, and the disposal of ambiguities and possible mistakes in its use3. “Necessity of interpretation of legal rules is determined by their attributes, peculiarities of forms of external expression and functioning, external appearance of legal rules, their lingo-logical and legal forms”4. In the course of interpretation, with the help of special interpretation rules, general and abstract instructions are transferred in the plane of particular statements facilitating the correlation of legally important attributes of a single case with attributes provided for by hypothesis of a particular rule. There is thus a transition from ambiguity in the legal treatment of this or that situation, to legal accuracy.
The essence of the second stage of law enforcement is correlation of the real situation with a particular legal rule (or legal rules), which by necessity includes checking the authenticity of a legal rule as well as its clarification by a law enforcer and, if necessary, explanation to persons interested.
The third stage of the law enforcement process is making a decision on
1 See: Vlasenko N.A. Logical. P. 36-38.
2 See: Khodukin D.V. Formy pravovykh predpisanij [Forms of legal instructions (theory-methodological
aspect)]. LLD Thesis. SPb., 2001. P. 116.
3 See: Nedbaylo PE. Op. cit. P. 328.
4 Cherdantsev A.F. Logiko-jazykovye fenomeny v prave, juridicheskoj nauke i praktike [Logico-lon-
guistic phenomena in law, juridical science and practice]. Ekaterinburg, 1993. P. 129.
a case and the delivery of the administrative act. It is a final and, together with that, basic stage, while all previous stages prepare preliminary conditions and materials for final disposition. In it the acting of the rule used is power-wieldingly extended on fact, rights and obligations of particular subjects are determined. If preliminary legal treatments serve as a means of promoting findings and are liable to the use of legal rule, then the final qualification serves as a basis for taking law enforcement decisions and is fixed in the official acts of state bodies. That is just with taking into account final (general) qualification that individualization of subjective rights and legal obligations takes place.
The decision on a case is accompanied by the delivery by a law enforcer (in written or other form) of the ad hoc regulation being legal fact and serving as a basis of creation, change or termination of the relationship1.
But enforcement of a judgment is an actively transforming activity and must be qualified as a procedural stage of the law enforcement process.
On the basis of this, we suppose that processual stages can also be used as a criterion of the classification of law enforcement technologies, because each of the functional or procedural stages has its own specifics. Technologies of law enforcement differ at each stage in composition of legal technological means united in them, which is determined by the scope of jurisdiction and authorities of each subject of law enforcement activity separately, and set of procedural stages of that subject's law enforcement activity fixed in the corresponding procedural legislation.
Law enforcement technology is thus a system of knowledge of the optimal use of legal technique tools, within the framework of definite strategy, tactics, methods, ways, principles, and techniques used in the activity of application of legal rules for achievement of desired result. The separation of law enforcement technology as a type of legal one offers an opportunity for recognising the existence of law enforcement technology as a complex legal process having specific attributes and elements separating it into an independent legal-technology system. That said, law enforcement technology at each such phase or stage is distinguished by a specific set of legal technique tools used for the purposes of achieving the goals of a particular stage.
References
1. Alekseyev S.S. Gosudarstvo i pravo: Nachalnyj kurs [State and law: Introductory course]. M., 1996.
2. Alekseyev S.S. Obshchaja teorija prava [General Theory of Law]. In 2 vol. M., 1982.
3. BakhvalovS.V. Zakonodatelnaja tekhnologija [Legal technology (some problems of theory and methodology). Synopsis of a LLD thesis]. Nizhny Novgorod, 2006.
4. CherdantsevA.F. Logiko-jazykovye fenomeny v prave, juridicheskoj nauke i praktike [Logico-longuistic phenomena in law, juridical science and practice]. Ekaterinburg, 1993.
5. Cherdantsev A.F. Teorija gosudarstva i prava [Theory of state and law]. M., 1999.
6. The Decree of Plenum of RF Supreme Court “On judicial judgment» of April 29, 1996 No 1 «On judicial judgment” // Bulletin of Supreme Court of RF. 1996. № 7.
7. Dyuryagin I.Ya. Primenenie norm sovetskogo prava [Application of Soviet legal
1 See: Gerasimova N.P. Ustanovlenie fakticheskikh obstojatelstv dela v pravoprimenitelnoj dejatel-nosti [Findings in law enforcement activity (on the basis of internal affairs bodies materials)]. Synopsis of a LLD thesis. M., 2000. P. 57.
norms]. Sverdlovsk, 1973.
8. Ershov V.V. Teoreticheskie i prakticheskie problemy pravoponimanija, pravotvorchestva i pravoprimenenija [Theoretical and practical problems of legal consciousness, lawmaking and law enforcement] // Teoreticheskie i prakticheskie problemy pravoponimanija [Theoretical and practical problems of legal consciousness: collection of articles]. M., 2009.
9. Gerasimova N.P. Ustanovlenie fakticheskikh obstojatelstv dela v pravoprimenitelnoj dejatelnosti [Findings in law enforcement activity (on the basis of internal affairs bodies materials)]. Synopsis of a LLD thesis. M., 2000.
10. Kartashov V.N. Juridicheskaja tekhnika, taktika, strategija I tekhnologija (k voprosu o sootnoshenii) [Legal technique, tactics, strategy and technology: (on the issue of their correlation)] // Problemy juridicheskoj tekhniki [Problems of legal technique: Collection of articles] / Ed. by V.M. Baranov. Nizhny Novgorod, 2000.
11. Kashanina T.V. Juridicheskaya tekhnika [Legal Technique]. M., 2007.
12. Kategov A.S. Mekhanizm primenenia prava i pravovaja sistema sovremennoj Rossii [Mechanism of law enforcement and legal system of modern Russia (theoretical and methodological analysis)]. Dr. Jurid. Sci. Thesis. SPb., 2002.
13. Khodukin D.V. Formy pravovykh predpisanij [Forms of legal instructions (theory-methodological aspect)]. LLD Thesis. Spb., 2001. P 116.
14. Kozhenevsky V.B. Primenenie norm prava kak osobaja forma ikh realizatsii v pravovom gosudarstve [Application of norms of law as a special form of their realisation in a legal state] // Problemy pravoprimenenija v sovremennoj Rossii [Problems of law application in modern Russia: Collection of articles]. Omsk, 2007.
15. Kudryavtsev V.N. Obshchaja teorija kvalifikatsii prestuplenij [General theory of classification of crimes]. M., 1999.
16. Lazarev V.V. Primenenie sovetskogo prava [Application of the Soviet law]. Kazan,
1972.
17. Lazarev V.V., Lipen R.V. Teorija gosudarstva i prava [Theory of state and law]. M.,
1999.
18. Lupinskaya P.A. Reshenija v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve [Decisions in criminal proceedings]. M., 2010.
19. Nedbaylo P.E. Primenenie sovetskikh pravovykh norm [Application of Soviet rules of law]. M., 1968.
20. Pyanov N.A. Istina v pravoprimenitelnoj dejatelnosti [Verity in law-enforcement activity: Synopsis of a LLD thesis]. M., 1987.
21. Romashov R.A. Juridicheskaja tekhnika i juridicheskaja tekhnologija [Legal technique and legal technology: some problems of theoretical modeling and practical implementation] // Legal Technique: Issues of Theory and Practice: Proceedings of the Interuniversity Scientific and Technical Conference. St. Petersburg, July 17, 2005. SPb., 2005.
22. Tuzov N.A. Motivirovanie i prejudiktsija juridicheskikh aktov [Motivation and prejudgement of judicial acts]. M. 2006.
23. Vlasenko N.A. Logicheskie osnovania juridicheskoj kvalifikatsii [Logical basis of legal qualification]. LLD Thesis. M., 2011. P. 60-63.
24. Vlasenko N.A. Zakonodatelnaja tekhnologija [Legislative technology (Theory. Experience. Rules). Teaching guide]. Irkutsk, 2001.
25. Voplenko N.N. Realizatsija prava [Enforcement of law: Teaching guide]. Volgograd,
2001.
26. Voplenko N.N. Sotsialisticheskaja zakonnost i primenenie prava [Socialist law and enforcement of law]. Saratov, 1983.
