MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7016606634

ロシア連邦制の構造と特徴 : 比較連邦論の視点から

2006· other· en· W7016606634 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueHokkaido University Collection of Scholarly and Academic Papers (Hokkaido University) · 2006
Typeother
Langueen
Domaine
Thématique
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésFederalismPoliticsLegislatureCommunismDemocracyCentral governmentGovernment (linguistics)Political system
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

After the demise of the Soviet Union, Russia changed from a communist regime to democratic rule. Federalism was chosen to coordinate the center-regional relationship: and Russia was reborn as the "Russian Federation." Recently, various Russian regional researches have been published, since "Rebellion" in the Russian region has often been observed. These provided exhaustive knowledge for Russian regional politics, but few paid attention to the type of relationship that has been built between center (federal government) and region (the components of the Russian Federation). Russia institutionalized the federal political system, which is recognized in most studies on federal political theory. Therefore, we need to explain Russian regional politics from the perspective of federalism, in order to deepen the comprehension of contemporary Russia. The aim of this thesis is to grasp the system of Russian federalism in the framework of comparative federalism. The traditional approaches to federalism are: the constitutional approach, the sociological approach, "the process to integration" approach, and the bargaining approach. While these four approaches provide an explanation that is somewhat effective with respect to federalism, they do not provide a concrete concept for an adequate comparison. Ronald Watts, who is one of the pioneers of comparative federalism, succeeded in resolving the problem of how to combine the multifarious factors of a federal state. He clarified the definition of federalism, and conceptionalized the following six features of a federal political system: 1. Two orders of government each acting directly on their citizens 2. A formal constitutional distribution of legislative and executive authority and allocation of revenue resources between the two orders of government ensuring some areas of genuine autonomy for each order 3. Provision for the designated representation of distinct regional views within the federal policy-making institutions, usually provided by the particular form of the federal second chamber 4. A supreme written constitution not unilaterally amendable and requiring the consent of a significant proportion of the constituent units 5. An umpire (in the form of courts or provision for referendums) to rule on disputes between governments 6. Processes and institutions to facilitate intergovernmental collaboration for those areas where governmental responsibilities are shared or inevitably overlap (Ronald Watts, Comparing Federal Systems, McGill-Queen's University Press, 1999, pp. 6-7) What kind of conclusions can be deduced when analyzing Russian federalism based on Watts's framework? I examined the jurisdiction between governments, the allocation of fiscal power, the functions of the senate, the constitutional amendment procedures, the role of constitutional courts, and the intergovernmental relations in comparison with other federal states. In the field of jurisdiction, the Russian federal government has never had wide-ranging power. However, the constitutional provision (Article 70, f): "the establishment of the fundamentals of federal policy and federal programs in thc spheres of state, economic, ecological, social, cultural and national development of the Russian Federation" can confer a power that can interfere in regional jurisdiction. Various powers are allocated in joint jurisdiction, but consensus building between governments is still unstable. With respect to fiscal matters, revenue resources allocated to the regions are larger than the average allocation in other federal states, but the fiscal gap between regions is very serious in Russia. Now, Putin's reform is pushing to change fiscal federalism. The aim of this reform is to clarify the fiscal responsibility of governments. It is possible that the reform causes regions' fiscal dependence on the federal budget because most regions do not have sufficient fiscal resources. And thus, the Russian Senate (Federal Council) holds an unstable institutional position. The Duma can override the veto of the senate, and the president can also enact law by decree. Since Putin's reform, the influence of the senate on the policy-making process continues to weaken; however, the senate is maintaining its status as the organ of regional representatives. In Russia, it is extremely difficult to amend the constitution, and the rigidity assures federalism. Federal government basically intends to recentralize the Russian Federation. However, the rigidity should protect the principles of federalism. The Russian constitutional court tends to deliver judgments including contents to defend federal jurisdictions. However, the court always tries to remain neutral in political conflicts among other federal, and regional organs. For example, the resolution, which was decided on 18 July 2003, repelled interference in the judiciary by the federal executive branch. Generally, the federal President takes the initiative in intergovernmental relationship construction because the Federal President is able to deal with center-regional problems flexibly through promulgation of the presidential decree. The federal government continues to exert pressure on regional governments, and it is difficult to reorganize regional political regimes. Therefore, stability of the Russian federal political system is inclined to depend on presidential influences. However, this system satisfies Watts's six features: I can confirm that the rigidity of the constitution, the independence of the constitutional courts, and the principle of regional representatives in the senate help to maintain federalism. The Russian federal political system seems to be wavering and is dependent on presidential initiative, but it does have the robustness of a constitutional system. The intergovernmental relations have been repeatedly transformed since 1993, but the principle of federalism has not changed.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Intégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesIntégrité de la recherche
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,025
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0090,007
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,003
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,191
Écart entre enseignants0,179 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2006
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHokkaido University Collection of Scholarly and Academic Papers (Hokkaido University)Travaux en français237 207