THE TYPES OF ADMINISTRATIVE COERCIVE MEASURES: CLASSIFICATION GROUPS OR ATTRIBUTIVE SIGNS?

There is a dogmatic assumption that one of the types of coercion by virtue of the administrative rules – administrative legal coercion – could emerge only on a basis of functional power and includes different groups of measures (precautionary, recovery, measures of responsibility, etc.). Herewith, it’s not always taken into account that such a study is ambiguous and its stumbling block is the preventative measures that cannot be explicitly attributed to coercive measures (they are not a response to violation). The authors propose a different approach: the administrative coercive measures always emerge on a basis of sustainable subordination of one party to another, and that’s why they are a kind of public discipline. There is no any functional power, and the linear dependence has a permanent organizational and situational secure character. The authors assert that the known groups of coercive measures are not classification constructions but attributes of a unified group of coercive measures applied by the enforcement authorities for the purpose of maintaining management order (in a broad meaning). Moreover, precaution is an aim of administrative activities, and prevention is their ideology not administrative means. The enforcement authorities apply, together with the measures of self-supporting management order, the measures of protecting constitutional rights and legal interests implementation of which is assessed on a basis of the criminal rules.