Protection of Lawful (Legitimate) Expectations as a Key Aspect of the Principle of Maintaining Public Trust in the Law and Government Actions: Foreign and Russian Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relevance of studying the principle of maintaining citizens' trust in the law and government actions stems from its pivotal role in ensuring the stability of legal systems and the legitimacy of state governance. The contradictions between, on the one hand, the principle of trust in governmental actions – demanding legal certainty and stability – and, on the other hand, the flexibility of state administration highlight the necessity for a systemic analysis of mechanisms implementing this principle. The study aims to identify theoretical and practical aspects of protecting legitimate (lawful) expectations as an element of the principle of trust in governmental actions within the framework of comparative jurisprudence, as well as to determine its place in the Russian legal system through the synthesis of foreign experience and national law enforcement trends. The methodological foundation includes a comparative legal analysis of foreign doctrines and Russian practices, a historical-legal method for reconstructing the evolution of the principle, and a formal-legal analysis of regulatory acts and rulings of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. The scientific novelty lies in the systemic examination of the interplay between legitimate expectations and institutions of procedural fairness and legal certainty across jurisdictions, as well as the synthesis of foreign concepts (e.g., the German principle of Vertrauensschutz, French sécurité juridique, and Anglo-American legitimate expectations) with Russian law enforcement approaches. The study proposes a classification of the grounds for legitimate expectations (individual assurances, established practices, regulatory acts). Research results revealed differences in the doctrine’s interpretation across legal systems: procedural protection in the UK, compensatory models in France, constitutional trust principles in Germany, and public interest prioritization in Canada and Australia. The Russian principle of maintaining trust in the law and governmental actions distinguishes between “lawful” and “legitimate” expectations and is implemented through legislative and enforcement dimensions. A critical analysis identified contradictions and challenges in practical implementation, leading to the formulation of development trends: unification of criteria for evaluating expectations, including clear definitions of their legal validity and protection mechanisms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".