Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation,Determination of October 3, 2002, No. 233-O

A group of members of the Public Chamber adopted a petition addressed to the parliament. It contains a proposal to improve the legislation in the sphere of countering extremist activity.     

Challenging the "Received View": De-demonizing Hamas

Abstract

Violence against abortion clinics and other activities directed toward patients and staff of abortion facilities have been termed terrorism by the pro‐choice movement. However, the Federal Bureau of Investigation denies that these actions are terrorism. Instances of abortion clinic violence for 1982–1987 were examined in order to determine whether there is a correspondence between these incidents and definitions or models of terrorism. It appears that these incidents do fit the classification of “limited political” or ‘subrevolutionary” terrorism. Reasons why the FBI has made the decision not to include these acts as forms of terrorism are entertained. One is that current international tensions have resulted in a preoccupation with only certain types of events which for administrative, i.e., juris‐dictional, reasons have come to essentialize terrorism. Another explanation, posited by pro‐choice activists, is that the FBI's decision is a consequence of political influence: the current administration is openly anti‐choice.     

Supervising the Implementation of Legislation on Land Use

For a long time, land use in the Russian Federation (RF) lacked a proper legal foundation. On October 30, 2001, the Land Code of the Russian Federation entered into force. In many respects it has facilitated a positive solution to questions of land use. The experience of application of the law accumulated over the period of its effect was analyzed by the procurators of subjects of the Federation, who in the first half of 2003 on the instructions of the General Procuracy of the RF conducted a verification of the implementation of the Land Code of the RF.     

Oversight of Administrative Rulemaking: Judicial Review

The role of the courts in the review of administrative rulemaking raises profound questions as to the legitimate interference of courts in the exercise of administrative activities, which are often carried out in the pursuance of a legislative mandate. In contrast to the review of administrative acts of individual application, the Union courts have shown a more hesitant approach in the review of administrative rulemaking activities. This contribution will discuss the review by the Union courts of administrative rulemaking for compliance with procedural as well as substantive standards and will explore whether a convincing rationale for their more deferential attitude to the review of administrative rules can be provided. The article will explore to what extent lessons can be learned from the jurisprudence of the federal courts in the USA, which have struggled, even after the adoption of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), with similar problems.