Abstract federal districts. Federal Districts of the Russian Federation: Analysis and Prospects for Development Federal Districts of the Russian Federation Prospects

Course work

on the topic "Federal districts of the Russian Federation: analysis and development prospects"

in the discipline "Constitutional Law"

Introduction

Chapter 1. Legal structure and history of creation

1 Composition of federal districts

2 Economic, political, social issues addressed by the federal districts

Chapter 2. Prospects for the development of federal districts

1 Development trend of federal districts

2 Strengthening the influence of federal districts on the development of the Russian Federation

Conclusion

Bibliography

INTRODUCTION

Russian federal district

The relevance of this topic lies in the fact that researchers are still discussing the feasibility of creating the institution of federal districts, its compliance with the norms of federalism.

When studying the institution of federal districts, the question arises of what the system of federal districts is. Is it understood as simply a managerial level, where federal bodies that are not connected to each other function, or as its own hierarchical system of relations, in the center of which is the plenipotentiary representative of the president, as the “head” of the federal district.

Many political scientists, economists, and lawyers are engaged in research on this topic. In particular, a political scientist, professor of the Faculty of Political Science of Moscow State University named after M.V. M.V. Lomonosov Turovsky Rostislav Feliksovich. One of his works is devoted to the federal districts and the political-geographical approach in theory and practice. Also, Doctor of Law Cherkasov Konstantin Valerievich pays great attention to this issue. The sphere of scientific interests of Cherkasov K.V. is the issues of managing the territorial development of the country, interregional public administration, structuring and functioning territorial bodies federal structures. He is the author of more than 180 scientific and educational works. One of his works is devoted to the state and development trends of the federal districts of the Russian Federation.

Federal districts as a whole, as territorial - administrative units of direct subordination to the central authorities of the state, which are not subjects of the Russian Federation, are the object of study of this course work.

The subject of this course work is a number of practical issues of the functioning of the system of federal districts.

The first group of questions is connected with the history of the functioning of the federal districts, with the introduction of the institution of plenipotentiaries into the regional environment. The second group of practical issues is determined by the problems of the legal status of federal districts and plenipotentiaries. The institute of federal districts is not provided for by the Russian constitution, which predetermines its secondary nature in the territorial-state system, the basis of which was and remains the division of Russia into 83 subjects of the federation. The president himself was forced to repeatedly declare that the federal districts are neither new administrative-territorial formations, nor the prototype of new subjects of the federation.

The third group of questions concerns those institutional conflicts that inevitably arise during the creation of federal districts.

In this term paper, I will try to consider whether the created federal districts and the appointed plenipotentiaries of the president in the federal districts contribute to more effective government of their territorial units, I will consider the trends and prospects for the development of federal districts, which is the purpose of this course work.

CHAPTER 1. LEGAL STRUCTURE AND HISTORY OF CREATION

From the point of view of political geography and the theory of territorial-state construction, the creation of federal districts meant the introduction of a new, auxiliary managerial level, designed to optimize control by the center over the vast and fractional Russian space. At the level of political propaganda, this could be and was presented as strengthening the state and the vertical of power.

The creation of federal districts was aimed at strengthening the administrative hierarchy through the creation of an institution of responsible federal controllers for certain geographical blocks of Russian regions.

The federal districts of the Russian Federation were created in accordance with the Decree of the President of Russia V.V. Putin No. 849 “On the Plenipotentiary Representative of the President of the Russian Federation in the Federal District” dated May 13, 2000. Federal districts are not subjects or other constitutional part of the administrative-territorial division of the Russian Federation and were created by analogy with military districts and economic regions, but did not coincide with their number and composition. This normative Decree is of fundamental importance and is located at the intersection of constitutional and administrative law, it was intended to strengthen the vertical line of development and functioning of the executive branch, to strengthen the federal government and its interaction with regional authorities, with the power structures of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

The Plenipotentiary of the President of the Russian Federation in the federal district is the representative of the President of the Russian Federation and an employee of the Presidential Administration.

The leadership of the districts dominates the incoming subjects, not having constitutional powers, but having the corresponding departmental powers.

Each such plenipotentiary is appointed by the President and is solely responsible to him. The tasks of this official include, first of all, organizing control over the execution of decisions of federal authorities in the federal district, submitting regular reports to the President on the state of affairs in the region, mediating in the interaction of presidential structures with state authorities of the subjects of the federation. The introduction of plenipotentiary representatives of the President of the Russian Federation on the basis of federal districts was another step towards strengthening the Presidential power in Russia. Proceeding from this, the functions and tasks of plenipotentiaries should be considered as tasks aimed primarily at expressing the will of the President. The main tasks and functions of the plenipotentiary representatives of the President of the Russian Federation in the federal districts are determined by the Regulation on the Plenipotentiary Representative of the President of the Russian Federation in the federal district

1. The composition of the federal districts.

At the time of the establishment of the federal districts on May 13, 2000, 7 federal districts were created. The only change in the names of the districts was the renaming of the North Caucasus District to the South on June 21, 2000. On January 19, 2010, in accordance with the decree of President D. A. Medvedev, the number of federal districts was increased to eight by separating the North Caucasian Federal District from the Southern Federal District.

Almost all okrugs consist predominantly or only of krais and oblasts. The only okrug that consists almost entirely of national republics is the North Caucasian okrug. The okrugs have defined city centers that house their governing coordinating bodies in the form of a plenipotentiary representative (plenipotentiary representative) of the President, his staff, and departments of federal departments. The North Caucasus District is the only one in which the city center is not the administrative center or the largest city of its subject.

In May 2000, seven federal districts were established by decree of the President of the Russian Federation:

Central Federal District: Belgorod Region, Bryansk region, Vladimir region. Voronezh region, Ivanovo region, Kaluga region, Kostroma region, Kursk region, Lipetsk region, Moscow region, Oryol Region, Ryazan region, Smolensk region, Tambov region, Tver region, Tula region, Yaroslavl region, Moscow. The center of the federal district is Moscow.

Northwestern Federal District: Republic of Karelia, Republic of Komi, Arkhangelsk Region, Vologda Region, Kaliningrad Region, Leningrad Region, Murmansk Region, Novgorod Region, Pskov Region, St. Petersburg, Nenets Autonomous District. The center of the federal district is St. Petersburg.

North Caucasian Federal District: Republic of Adygea (Adygea), Republic of Dagestan, Republic of Ingushetia, Kabardino-Balkarian Republic, Republic of Kalmykia, Karachay-Cherkess Republic, Republic of North Ossetia-Alania, Chechen Republic, Krasnodar Territory, Stavropol Territory, Astrakhan Region, Volgograd region, Rostov region. The center of the federal district is the city of Rostov-on-Don.

June 2000, in accordance with Presidential Decree No. 1149, the North Caucasian Federal District was renamed the Southern Federal District, then on January 19, 2010, in accordance with Presidential Decree No. 82, the North Caucasian Federal District was separated from the Southern Federal District, which became the 8th federal district.

Southern Federal District today: Republic of Adygea;

Republic of Kalmykia; Krasnodar region; Astrakhan region; Volgograd region; Rostov region

The center of the federal district is the city of Rostov-on-Don.

Volga Federal District: Republic of Bashkortostan, Republic of Mari El, Republic of Mordovia, Republic of Tatarstan (Tatarstan), Udmurt Republic, Chuvash Republic - Chavash Republic, Kirov Region, Nizhny Novgorod Region, Orenburg region, Penza region, Perm region, Samara region, Saratov region, Ulyanovsk region. The center of the federal district is the city of Nizhny Novgorod.

Ural Federal District: Kurgan Region, Sverdlovsk Region, Tyumen Region, Chelyabinsk Region, Khanty-Mansi Autonomous District, Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous District. The center of the federal district is Yekaterinburg.

Siberian Federal District: Republic of Altai, Republic of Buryatia, Republic of Tuva, Republic of Khakassia, Altai region, Krasnoyarsk Territory, Irkutsk Region, Kemerovo Region, Novosibirsk Region, Omsk Region, Tomsk Region, Chita Region, Aginsky Buryat Autonomous Okrug, Taimyr (Dolgano-Nenets) Autonomous Okrug, Ust-Ordynsky Buryat Autonomous Okrug, Evenki Autonomous Okrug. The center of the federal district is Novosibirsk.

January 2007, the Taimyr (Dolgano-Nenets) Autonomous Okrug was abolished and the Taimyr Municipal District of the Okrug became part of the Krasnoyarsk Territory.

January 2008 Ust-Orda Buryat Autonomous Okrug became part of the Irkutsk region.

On January 1, 2007, the Evenk Autonomous Okrug, which had previously been an independent subject of the Russian Federation, became the Evensky District of the Krasnoyarsk Territory.

In March 2008, the Trans-Baikal Territory was formed by combining the Chita Region and the Buryat Autonomous Okrug.

Thus, today the Siberian Federal District includes: the Republic of Altai; The Republic of Buryatia; Tyva Republic; The Republic of Khakassia; Altai region; Zabaykalsky District; Krasnoyarsk region; Irkutsk region; Kemerovo region; Novosibirsk region; Omsk region; Tomsk region.

Far Eastern Federal District: Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), Primorsky Territory, Khabarovsk Territory, Amur region, Kamchatka Region, Magadan Region, Sakhalin Region, Jewish Autonomous Region, Koryak Autonomous Okrug, Chukotka Autonomous Okrug. The center of the federal district is the city of Khabarovsk.

July 2007, as a result of the unification of the Kamchatka region and the Koryak Autonomous Okrug, the Kamchatka Territory was formed.

Far Eastern Federal District today: Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), Primorsky Territory, Khabarovsk Territory, Amur Region, Kamchatsky Territory, Magadan Region, Sakhalin Region, Jewish Autonomous Region, Chukotka Autonomous Region.

January 2010, in accordance with Presidential Decree No. 82, the North Caucasian Federal District was created, which became the 8th in a row.

To date, the North Caucasian Federal District: the Republic of Dagestan, the Republic of Ingushetia, the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic; Karachay-Cherkess Republic, Republic of North Ossetia - Alania, Chechen Republic. Stavropol region. The center of the federal district is the city of Pyatigorsk.

So, today there are 8 federal districts:

Central Federal District (6th place in terms of territory, 1st place in terms of population);

Northwestern Federal District (4th place in terms of territory and population);

Southern Federal District (7th place in terms of territory, 5th place in terms of population);

North Caucasian Federal District (8th place in terms of territory, 7th place in terms of population);

Privolzhsky Federal District (5th place in terms of territory, 2nd place in terms of population);

Ural Federal District (3rd place in terms of territory, 6th place in terms of population);

Siberian Federal District (2nd place in terms of territory, 3rd place in terms of population);

Far Eastern Federal District (1st place in terms of territory, 8th place in terms of population).

Part Central Federal Districtincludes 18 constituent entities of the Russian Federation (they are listed above). The Central Federal District occupies 650.3 thousand square meters. kilometers (3.8 percent of the territory of the Russian Federation). As of January 1, 2011, the resident population amounted to 38,456.9 thousand people (26.9 percent of the country's population, of which 80.9 percent are urban residents).

Part Northwestern Federal Districtincludes 11 subjects of the Russian Federation (they are listed above). Territory - 1678 thousand km2. Population - 14.5 million people. Federal District in % of Russia: territory - 9.8; population - 9.9; gross regional product - 9.3; industrial products - 11.8; agricultural products - 6.9.

Part Southern Federal District

In the west, the district has land and water borders with Ukraine, in the east - with Kazakhstan. In the south it borders on Abkhazia and the North Caucasian Federal District. In the north - with the Central and Volga federal districts. In the east, the federal district is bounded by the Caspian Sea, in the west - by the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea.

The Southern Federal District (after the separation of the North Caucasian Federal District from it) includes 2 republics, 3 regions and 1 territory. Its area is 416 thousand 840 square meters. km. Population - 13,798.4 thousand people. This is 9.45% of all Russians.

Part North Caucasian Federal Districtincludes 7 subjects of the Russian Federation (they are listed above).

The population of the federal district, according to the results of the 2010 census, amounted to 9,496,800 people according to Rosstat.

The center of the district is the city of Pyatigorsk, the only one of the centers of the districts that is neither the administrative center of the subject included in the district, nor the largest city of the district (however, it is part of the large Caucasian-Mineralnye Vody agglomeration).

The only federal district, represented only by the republics, as well as one region.

The regions of the North Caucasian Federal District are included in the North Caucasian Economic Region.

Part Volga Federal Districtincludes 14 subjects of the Russian Federation (they are listed above).

Territory - 1036 thousand km2. Population - 32.0 million people.

Federal District in % of Russia: territory - 6.1, population - 21.9, gross regional product - 20.2; industrial products - 24.2; agricultural products - 24.2.

Part Ural federal districtincludes 6 subjects of the Russian Federation (they are listed above).

Territory - 1789 thousand km2. Population - 12.6 million people.

Federal district in % of Russia: territory - 10.4; population - 8.6; gross regional product - 14.8; industrial products - 18.9; agricultural products - 7.1.

Part Siberian federal districtincludes 12 subjects of the Russian Federation (they are listed above).

In the west, the Siberian Federal District borders on the Ural Federal District, in the east - on the Far Eastern Federal District, in the south - on Kazakhstan and Mongolia. The territory of the district is 30% of the territory of the Russian Federation.

According to the results of the All-Russian population census in 2010, 19,256,426 people live in the Siberian Federal District, which is 13.48% of the total population of Russia.

Part Far East federal districtincludes 9 subjects of the Russian Federation (they are listed above).

Square Far East Russia is 6215.9 thousand km ², 36% the area of the whole country (the largest federal district in terms of area).

According to the data of the All-Russian population census of 2002, as of October 9, 2002, 6 million 692 thousand 865 people lived in the Far Eastern Federal District, which is 4.61% of the population of Russia.

Here are some indicators of the federal districts:

The share of the Central Federal District accounts for 33.9 percent of the total gross regional product, 21.6 percent of agricultural and 26.5 percent of industrial output of the country.

The Central Federal District provides 33 percent of income in budget system Russia, 43.2 percent of Russian exports and 57.7 percent of imports.

Volga Federal District produces more than 4/5 of Russian automotive products.

Volga Federal District ranks second in the country in terms of total oil production. Oil production is mainly carried out on the territory of the republics of Tatarstan and Bashkiria. The oil refining industry of the Volga Federal District maintains its leading position in the country.

The main wealth of the Urals Federal District is Russia's largest oil and natural gas resources in the Tyumen region. There are large reserves of iron ores and non-ferrous metal ores in the mining Urals.

One of economic benefits Siberian Federal District - development of territories located in the BAM zone. This area contains gold, rare metals, copper, coal, asbestos, etc. The total investment capacity of these projects (without oil, gas and pipelines) is about 7-10 billion dollars. Gross regional product - 715.2 billion rubles. (or 11.4% of GRP in Russia).

2. Economic, political, social issues addressed by the federal districts.

The creation of federal districts makes it possible to solve national problems related to the formation of a single economic space of Russia, based on administrative and economic ties, where not only large financial and monetary capital is used, but also the opportunities of small and medium-sized businesses, state budget spheres. This makes it possible to define specific, clear-cut powers of the Center and subjects of the Federation within the framework of their joint competence, to restore order in the system of territorial structures of federal executive bodies in interbudgetary relations.

Today, eight federal districts are a more rigid form for streamlining work with regional elites.

An important role in the system of federal districts is played by advisory bodies that allow coordinating the activities of regional authorities and integrating regional elites.

For example, in the Central Federal District, the practice of “thematic” Councils has been developed, which are held in certain regions on certain specific issues of national and regional significance. The subject of meetings of the District Councils are also issues of an economic nature, which contributes to economic development and attraction of investments in the subjects of the federation. Events of the Central Federal District, representing the presentation of the economic opportunities of its regions, were even held in London and Brussels. An investment forum in Tambov, nicknamed "Tambov Davos", has become a regular event on the territory of the Okrug. Among other things, it allows to attract interest to the Tambov region - one of the most backward regions of Central Russia. In September 2012, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit was held in the Far East. In 2015, Ufa will host meetings of the Council of Heads of State of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and meetings of BRICS Heads of State and Government.

All districts have established "parliamentary assemblies" that bring together the speakers of the regional legislative assemblies. The work of these “assemblies”, if properly organized, makes it possible to coordinate the regional legislative process. In this way, compliance of regional legislation with federal legislation can be maintained, and at the same time, preliminary discussions of regional legislative initiatives can take place.

Opportunities for the development of federal districts as integrated territorial systems are being expanded through the creation of intellectual centers in the districts and the implementation of district economic programs. In some federal districts, the Centers for Strategic Research were established (North-Western, Volga, Siberian districts). In a number of cases, attempts were made to develop a strategy for the economic development of the district and to obtain budget funding for it.

Combining medium-scale regions (oblasts, territories, republics) into large economic regions allows, to a certain extent, to have a generalized idea of the features of the territorial division of labor and territorial-economic relations (in an elementary form expressed by economic indicators). The grid of macro-regions, revealing the modern and prospective regional structure of the national economy, is especially convenient for current and medium-term planning (forecasting) and the development of statistical reports in the territorial context and has long been used as such. It is no coincidence that large economic regions are also called the main ones.

As for the current scheme of federal districts, it includes not only economic zoning, but also elements of defense (military districts) and national-political zoning; this led to the necessary transformation of some (especially the Volga and Ural) territorial and economic macro-complexes.

The federal districts are of special national importance, they are designed to solve national problems, cementing the unified political and economic space of Russia.

Among the functions of an authorized representative:

coordination of activities of federal executive bodies in the district;

organizing the interaction of these bodies with state authorities of the subjects of the Federation, local governments, political parties, other public and religious associations;

development, together with interregional associations of economic interaction, programs for the socio-economic development of territories within the district;

organization of control over the execution of federal laws, decrees and orders of the President, resolutions and orders of the Government, over the implementation of federal programs;

participation in the work of state authorities of the subjects of the Federation, as well as local governments within the district, etc.

In such multi-resource economic zones, the best conditions are formed for the territorial and economic integration of productive forces, the formation of corporate production and commercial structures, regional markets with large commodity resources and a powerful market infrastructure. Prerequisites are being created for the effective regulation of scientific and technological progress, investment activity, for reasonable economic incentives (taxes, prices, tariffs, etc.), the establishment of self-financing and commodity self-sufficiency, the organization of a system of state support for underdeveloped territories, the development of comprehensive territorial forecasts and plans.

An important functional purpose of economic zones - enlarged economic regions (federal districts, etc.) - is long-term territorial forecasting and planning. It deals with a relatively small range of indicators, aggregated calculations, the degree of reliability of which decreases both with the expansion of the time horizon and with the decrease in the size of territorial units. Therefore, for forecasts for 10 years or more, it is advisable to use schemes of continuous zones - enlarged economic regions representing groupings of macroregions.

The importance of horizontal ties between the subjects of the Federation for the development of sustainable federal relations necessitates their strengthening and strengthening. The commonality and uniformity of the socio-economic problems of a number of subjects of the Federation located in different federal districts, in some cases objectively dictates the expediency of their simultaneous resolution. Thus, at the federal level, due attention is paid to the comprehensive solution of issues of socio-economic development of the subjects of Russia located within the Far Eastern and part of the Siberian federal districts. Based on the results of the working meeting of the plenipotentiaries of the President of the Russian Federation in the Urals and Volga federal districts on December 14, 2000 in Perm, the development and implementation of interdistrict cooperation mechanisms were recognized as a priority task.

In addition, the unification of regions into federal districts gives them the opportunity to jointly defend their common positions before the central government. The implementation of state sovereignty takes place with the active participation in this process of the subjects of Russia and together with them, but with the dominance of the federal center within the constitutional framework, which makes it possible to build a subsidiary state on the basis of mutual responsibility of the authorities.

Summarizing what was said in the first chapter, it can be stated that the federal districts, allowing to provide organizational and economic mechanisms for the growth of regional economies, are able to equalize the asymmetry of the socio-economic development of the regions that is most dangerous for the existence of a federal state, which makes it possible to optimize the economic foundations of Russian federalism.

As a result, instead of many disparate and unmanageable federal territorial structures in 83 regions, a rigid, top-to-bottom, orderly system of executive power was created, which made it possible not only to adjust regional legislation, but also to find ways to control the attraction of financial resources, to increase the investment attractiveness of the regions ..

Thus, the creation of federal districts creates conditions for the development of integration processes within the framework of territorial and economic structures, the formation of a market infrastructure, and contributes to an increase in the efficiency of investment and innovation activities and the functioning of regional markets.

CHAPTER 2. PROSPECTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FEDERAL DISTRICT

At the current stage, the institute of federal districts is in need of stabilization. There is an ongoing debate about the effectiveness of the system, largely due to the fact that many elements of the county system have not been fine-tuned, "finished" and standardized for all counties.

The history of the functioning of the federal districts can be divided into stages. At the first stage, the importance of the institution of plenipotentiaries was artificially exaggerated as part of a PR campaign, and the plenipotentiaries themselves behaved harshly, often aggressively, trying to assert their superiority over the main objects of their control - the governors. At the second stage, the institute of federal districts and plenipotentiaries began to pass a new frontier. This stage can be called integration. The effectiveness of the actions of the plenipotentiaries is beginning to be assessed more and more skeptically, which, in the eyes of many observers, casts doubt on the very expediency of the federal districts. But at the same time, a deeper integration of plenipotentiaries into the regional environment begins, the system is evolving from intervention to partnership with regional elites.

The third stage of the functioning of the federal districts can be called stabilization. The system of federal districts is finally built into the relationship between the center and the regions, occupying its intermediate position in it. It was at this stage that we can say that the institute took place. On the one hand, its contradictions with the regional level of power are smoothed out, which leads to a significant reduction in contradictions between the level of federal districts and the level of subjects of the federation. On the other hand, the procedures for implementing centralized control through the system of federal districts are being adjusted and become more routine; they work, but are no longer perceived as gross interference and pressure. However, the stabilization of the federal districts is rather conditional. An analysis of the history of federal districts allows us to talk about the transition from their artificial “implantation” into the system of relations between the federal and regional levels of government, which was inevitably fraught with conflicts, to natural bureaucratic self-regulation. At the current stage, the latter trend prevails, and its development allows us to conclude that the institution of federal districts has nevertheless taken place as a normal, managerial level that fulfills the tasks set by the center, as well as the tasks that have been determined in the course of the development of the process. In this regard, the trends in the development of federal districts, which will be discussed below, are of interest.

1. The development trend of the federal districts.

There are various socio-economic strategies for the development of federal districts. I will consider a number of them.

The Strategy for Socio-Economic Development of the North Caucasus Federal District until 2025 (hereinafter referred to as the Strategy) defines the main directions, methods and means of achieving the strategic goals of sustainable development and ensuring the national security of the Russian Federation in the territories of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic, the Karachay-Cherkess Republic, the Republic of Dagestan , the Republic of Ingushetia, the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania, the Chechen Republic and the Stavropol Territory, which are part of the North Caucasian Federal District, until 2025.

The strategy was developed taking into account the Concept of long-term socio-economic development of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2020.

The strategy takes into account state of the art economy of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation that are part of the North Caucasus Federal District, the Russian economy, the global economy and the prospects for their development, as well as the results of the implementation of projects of regional and interregional significance.

The North Caucasian Federal District has favorable conditions for the development of the agro-industrial complex, tourism, the sanatorium and resort sector, the electric power industry, the mining and manufacturing sectors of industry, as well as developed transit functions.

The main goal of the Strategy is to provide conditions for the accelerated development of the real sector of the economy in the subjects of the Russian Federation that are part of the North Caucasus Federal District, the creation of new jobs, as well as to improve the living standards of the population.

Among the most attractive investment projects in the southern federal district is the development of southern industrial centers. Today, the Volgograd Tractor Plant produces from 2 to 3 thousand units of equipment per year, and is capable of producing up to 50 thousand tractors. With an increase in the harvest in the subjects of the district from 16.5 million to 30-35 million tons of grain, additional agricultural machinery will be required. Accordingly, it is necessary to develop the capacities of the enterprises producing it.

Another direction is the development of tourism and sanatorium base. The south of Russia with its unique beaches of the Black Sea coast of the Krasnodar Territory (Sochi, Anapa, Gelendzhik), with its mild climate and sunny days, is a fertile region. The resorts of the south of Russia are able to receive up to 25 million people annually.

A large resort and recreational complex has been formed in the districts. About 50 out of 150 climatic, balneological, balneological and mud resorts of the country are located in the Southern Federal District. The resort and tourism business in the Southern Federal District is one of the most effective areas of the region's economy, the development of which will be facilitated by the improvement of existing centers of national importance, the redistribution of tourist flows across the territory, the creation of new conditions for winter recreation, the construction of modern resort complexes, and the provision of high-quality services to tourists .

The Strategy for the Socio-Economic Development of Siberia until 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the Strategy) defines the main directions, mechanisms and tools for achieving the strategic goals of Siberia's development for the period up to 2020.

The strategy was developed taking into account the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation until 2020.

The priority sectors of the socio-economic development of Siberia in 2010 - 2020 will be: information telecommunication technologies, nanoindustry, biotechnologies;

mechanical engineering (drilling, mining, pipeline, transport, energy and electrical engineering, metallurgical, housing and communal and construction), aircraft building, production of medical equipment and precision instrumentation; extractive industry (extraction of oil, gas, coal, ferrous, non-ferrous, precious and rare earth metals) and increase in mining; geological exploration work; processing industry - deep processing of primary raw materials (oil, gas, coal, wood chemistry), production of cellulose, paper, high-tech fuels and lubricants, wood boards, furniture and metallurgy products; agro-industrial complex (including organic food products); energy complex (including small (municipal) energy and renewable energy sources); infrastructure of rail, road, air, sea, river and pipeline transport; building materials industry; construction of comfortable social housing at affordable prices (in cities), individual houses (in rural areas), housing for shift workers and workers of the agro-industrial complex; applied science and scientific support for industry, transport, construction and agro-industrial complex; high-quality (including export-oriented) services of transport, financial sector, education, tourism and recreation, healthcare and culture.

The strategic goal of the development of the Far East and the Baikal region is the implementation of the geopolitical task of securing the population in this territory through the formation of a developed economy and a comfortable human environment in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation located on this territory, as well as achieving the average Russian level of socio-economic development.

To achieve this goal, it is necessary to ensure a comparable or ahead of the average Russian socio-economic development of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation located in the Far East.

The basic scenario for the development of the Far East and the Baikal region, envisaged by the Strategy - 2025, is linked to the innovative scenario of the Concept of long-term socio-economic development of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2020 and is based on the fullest use of the competitive advantage of the regional economy, the natural resource and transit potential of the territory, sustainable increasing the export of competitive products and modernizing the transport infrastructure.

It also seems promising to increase the number of federal districts within the borders of Russia, which will allow, without significantly violating the interregional ties that have developed within the federal districts, to increase the efficiency of the functioning of state bodies at the level of the federal district, to raise the degree of their interaction with other public authorities to a higher level, and also to maximally align the federal districts with each other in socio-economic terms, to significantly strengthen the managerial aspect in their placement.

2.2 Strengthening the influence of federal districts on the development of the Russian Federation

The main point in the formation of federal districts is associated with taking into account a complex of factors that contribute to strengthening the vertical of executive power, strengthening the influence of the central government on political and economic processes in the regions, which allows district state bodies, relying on established institutions, to ensure the implementation of decisions of central federal state bodies on the ground, and in some cases even implement them independently. The federal districts bridge the gap between the central federal state bodies and their territorial subdivisions in the regions, and contribute to the revival of the norm of state governance that was previously violated. They significantly changed the system of state territorial administration, made it possible to form the missing middle management link, a kind of additional level of exercising the powers of federal state bodies.

Summarizing what was stated in the second chapter, I state that the appearance of powerful territorial and economic complexes in the form of federal districts contributes to the progressive development, alignment of socio-economic differences, economic and political integration of the subjects of the Federation, creates a system of large-scale, multi- and multi-resource segments of a single economic and legal space. If we consider each of them as a kind of national economic complex with its own historical, natural and economic specifics and production potential, then significant reserves are revealed for restructuring and raising the country's economy.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results of the questions discussed above, I can draw the following conclusions.

The creation of federal districts has become a powerful stimulus for the development of "regional capitals", which the state objectively needs. In the Russian space, such capitals play the role of nodes organizing large areas around them. The system of federal districts is a political-geographical structure, through the networks of which innovations spread. The state is interested in organizing and streamlining the innovation process that goes from Moscow to the district capitals, from the latter to the administrative centers of the subjects of the federation, and then to the periphery of individual regions. Such an organization of space can be considered progressive. At the same time, the district capitals themselves become major innovation centers and receive an additional incentive for their development. Increasing their number to 10-12 is also a very useful incentive, since the current eight regional capitals are objectively insufficient, and many large centers have been undeservedly deprived of their potential status as first-order nodes.

A radical enlargement of the subjects of the federation at this stage is simply impossible. The main problem is that the enlargement of the subjects of the federation is impossible without the destruction of the institution of national-territorial autonomy: the smallest subjects of the federation are mostly national autonomies. The number of federal subjects cannot be radically changed. Therefore, the preservation and development of the level of federal districts is fully justified by Russian geography, and precisely as a single sub-federal framework, and not as intersecting "departmental" districts. At the intra-regional level, it is justified to preserve the historically established two internal administrative levels, the lower - settlement and sub-regional - the level of large cities and administrative regions that unite settlements.

So, the institution of federal districts is an intermediate managerial level, characteristic of a large and administratively fragmented country. It is of particular importance at the crisis stage of the development of Russian statehood as a safety element of centralized anti-crisis management. At the same time, as the study shows, the system of federal districts is objectively necessary for optimizing the territorial-state construction in Russia in the long term. At the same time, it needs its own “internal” optimization.

It can be concluded that the institution of federal districts has taken place as a normal, managerial level that fulfills the tasks set by the center, as well as the tasks determined in the course of the development of the process, the emergence of powerful territorial and economic complexes in the form of federal districts contributes to the progressive development, alignment of socio-economic differences, economic and political integration of the subjects of the Federation, creates a system of large-scale, multi- and multi-resource segments of a single economic and legal space.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Regulations

Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of May 13, 2000 No. No. 849 "On the Plenipotentiary Representative of the President of the Russian Federation in the Federal District" // SZ RF. 2000. No. 20. Art.2112

Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. No. 82 "On Amendments to the List of Federal Districts, approved by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of May 13, 2000 No. No. 849 and in the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of 12.05.2008 No. No. 724 "Issues of the system and structure of federal executive bodies" // SZ RF. 2010. No. 4. Art.369

Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of March 24, 2005 No. No. 337 "On Councils under the Plenipotentiary Representatives of the President of the Russian Federation in the Federal Districts" // SZ RF. 2005. No. 13. Art.1139

Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. No. 332 "On Amending the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of March 24, 2005 N 337 "On Councils under the Plenipotentiary Representatives of the President of the Russian Federation in Federal Districts" and Recognizing Some Decrees of the President of the Russian Federation as Invalid" // SZ RF. 2010. No. 13. Art.1451

Federal constitutional law of 30.12.2006 No. No. 6-FKZ "On the formation within the Russian Federation as a result of the unification of the Irkutsk region and the Ust-Orda Buryat Autonomous Okrug" // SZ RF. 2007. No. 1 (1 hour). Art.1

Federal constitutional law of 12.07.2006 No. No. 2-FKZ "On the formation within the Russian Federation as a result of the unification of the Kamchatka region and the Koryak Autonomous Okrug" // SZ RF. 2006. No. 29. Art.3119

Federal constitutional law of 21.07.2007 No. No. 5-FKZ "On the formation as part of the Russian Federation of the Russian Federation as a result of the unification of the Chita region and the Aginsky Buryat Autonomous Okrug" // SZ RF. 2007. No. 30. Art.3745

Federal Constitutional Law of March 25, 2004 No. No. 1-FKZ "On the formation as part of the Russian Federation as a result of the unification of the Perm Region and the Komi-Permyak Autonomous Okrug" // SZ RF. 2004. No. 13. Art.1110

Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 12.08.2000 No. No. 592 "On the interaction of the government of the Russian Federation and federal executive authorities with the authorized representatives of the President of the Russian Federation in the federal district and the layout of territorial executive authorities" // SZ RF. 2000. No. 34. Art.3473

Special literature

Alaev E. Federal districts - an innovation in the territorial status of Russia. // Federalism, 2000, No. 4, pp. 169-182.

Federal District, Federal Territory - an administrative-territorial unit of direct subordination to the central authorities of the state, which is not a subject of the federation, in some federation countries.

The traditional federal district should not be confused with the federal districts of the Russian Federation (macro-regions that unite regions-subjects of the federation), the names of which formally contain the same words.

Federal districts are not subjects or other constitutional part of the administrative-territorial division of the Russian Federation and were created by analogy with their own districts and economic regions, but did not coincide with their number and composition.

At the time of their establishment in 2000, 7 federal districts were created. The first change in their number (increasing to eight) and composition was the separation of the North Caucasian Federal District from the Southern Federal District on the basis of a decree of President D. A. Medvedev on January 19, 2010. The only change in the names of the districts was the previous renaming of the North Caucasian District to Southern 21 June 2000.

At the proposal of President Medvedev (dated June 2011), it is planned to create the Capital Federal District (the border of which is supposed to be the Central Ring Road). Name?

Almost all okrugs consist predominantly or only of krais and oblasts. The only okrug that consists almost entirely of national republics is the North Caucasian okrug.

The districts have defined city centers that house their governing and coordinating bodies in the form of a plenipotentiary representative of the president, his staff and departments of federal departments. The North Caucasus District is the only one in which the city center is not the administrative center or the largest city of its subject.

The leadership of the districts dominates the incoming subjects, not having constitutional powers, but having the corresponding departmental powers (in federal departments there are departments for federal districts

1 Central Federal District: Belgorod Region, Bryansk Region, Vladimir Region, Voronezh Region, Ivanovo Region, Kaluga Region, Kostroma Region, Kursk Region, Lipetsk Region, Moscow Region, Orel Region, Ryazan Region region, Smolensk region, Tambov region, Tver region, Tula region, Yaroslavl region, Moscow. The district center is Moscow.

2 Northwestern Federal District: Republic of Karelia, Republic of Komi, Arkhangelsk Region, Vologda Region, Kaliningrad Region, Leningrad Region, Murmansk Region, Novgorod Region, Pskov Region, St. Petersburg, Nenets Autonomous District. The center of the district is St. Petersburg.

3 Southern Federal District: Republic of Adygea, Republic of Kalmykia, Krasnodar Territory, Astrakhan Region, Volgograd Region, Rostov Region. The center of the district is the city of Rostov-on-Don1.

4 North Caucasian Federal District: Republic of Dagestan, Republic of Ingushetia, Kabardino-Balkarian Republic, Karachay-Cherkess Republic, Republic of North Ossetia-Alania, Chechen Republic, Stavropol Territory. The center of the district is the city of Pyatigorsk.

5 Volga Federal District: Republic of Bashkortostan, Republic of Mari El, Republic of Mordovia, Republic of Tatarstan, Udmurt Republic, Chuvash Republic, Kirov Region, Nizhny Novgorod Region, Orenburg Region, Penza Region, Perm Territory, Samara Region, Saratov Region, Ulyanovsk Region. The center of the district is Nizhny Novgorod.

6 Ural Federal District: Kurgan Region, Sverdlovsk Region, Tyumen Region, Chelyabinsk Region, Khanty-Mansi Autonomous District, Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous District. The center of the district is the city of Yekaterinburg.

7 Siberian Federal District: Republic of Altai, Republic of Buryatia, Republic of Tyva, Republic of Khakassia, Altai Territory, Krasnoyarsk Territory, Trans-Baikal Territory, Irkutsk Region, Kemerovo Region, Novosibirsk Region, Omsk Region, Tomsk Region, Taimyr (Dolgano-Nenets) Autonomous Okrug, Ust-Orda Buryat Autonomous Okrug, Evenki Autonomous Okrug. The district center is Novosibirsk.

8 Far Eastern Federal District: Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), Primorsky Territory, Khabarovsk Territory, Amur Region, Kamchatka Region, Magadan Region, Sakhalin Region, Jewish Autonomous Region, Koryaksky Autonomous Region, Chukotka Autonomous Region. The center of the district is the city of Khabarovsk.

The federal districts were created as a relatively autonomous, independent, even alien link in the administrative management system. Despite the presence of the word "federal" in their name, it is easy to see that the idea and structure of federal districts contradict the principles of federalism, the districts act as an element of unitarity. Thus, in this reform, the principle of combining in different proportions the elements of various forms of territorial structure - federation, confederation and unitarism, and indefinability in connection with this form of the territorial structure of the state, was once again confirmed.

Districts are a kind of superstructure of the floor above the subjects of the federation. At the same time, the official appointed by the President and responsible only to him - the plenipotentiary representative of the President in the federal district - actually stood over the elected authorities of the regions, including not only over the governors of the regions, but also over the presidents of the republics. characteristic of the 1990s. duplication of administrative functions between the plenipotentiary and the governor was replaced by the dominance of the plenipotentiary over the governor.

Thus, it can be argued that the federal districts in the Russian Federation are special territorial entities, their establishment is associated with a number of specific factors and the need to solve the following tasks: improving federal relations, restoring the controllability of the state, ensuring its stability and sovereignty, strengthening the power vertical, improving conditions for control over the activities of the federal government in the regions.
To date, within the framework of the federal district, work is being organized to implement the main directions of the domestic and foreign policy of the state, control is being exercised over the implementation of decisions of federal government bodies. The creation of federal districts contributes to ensuring national security, improving the political, social and economic situation in each district, as well as strengthening the vertical of executive power in the Russian Federation and the influence of the Federation on solving problems in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation.
Based on the current legal norms governing the activities of regional structures of federal government bodies and authorized representatives of the President in federal districts, we can conclude that the main purpose of these federal divisions of the state apparatus is to strengthen the control functions of the President and the federal center as a whole at the regional level and ensuring that all norms of the federal Constitution are equally valid on the territory of Russia, regardless of the ethno-national, religious and other characteristics of the subjects of the Federation.

1. The federal districts act in the territorial construction of Russia as an element of unitarity within a federal state, tightening the system of territorial administration and protecting it from recurrences of “regional barony”.

2. The creation of federal districts made it possible to bring the system of territorial administration into relative unity, not only by normalizing the legal framework, but also by putting political levers of influence on the regions into action.

3. Nevertheless, the problem of optimization of territorial administration remains unresolved to the end, and this leads to further attempts to unify political systems subjects of the federation with a federal political system.

32. Macro-regions of the modern world

Macro-regions are large economic zones of the country with characteristic natural and economic conditions for the development of productive forces, depending on the combination and concentration natural resources, historical factors of economic formation and regional distribution of the population. This article presents the classification of the countries of the world by macrogeographically, regions of the continents (Africa, America, Asia, Europe, Oceania), used for statistical purposes in the United Nations (UN) in accordance with the document " Standard country or area codes for use in statistics, developed by the UN Secretariat.

The transition of the country's economy to market relations requires a differentiated approach to the development of the subjects of the Federation included in the district. In the last decade, a significant decline in production was noted in areas associated with the development of the machine-building complex and oriented towards the development of light industry. This is due to the use of outdated equipment and non-competitive products manufactured in the leading sectors of the region's economic complex. The high concentration of enterprises of the military-industrial complex in the region also played an important role in the decline in production.

The Okrug has the necessary conditions for the production of import-substituting products. An increase in labor productivity at the enterprises of the machine-building complex is possible only on the condition of a radical reconstruction of a significant part of the enterprises and the improvement of their technical equipment. Deepening the specialization of mechanical engineering should be associated with the production of high-tech and competitive products that are in demand not only in the domestic but also in the foreign market.

Prospects for the development of the chemical industry of the district can be realized only through the reconstruction and technical re-equipment of existing enterprises. Further expansion of their capacities is inexpedient, since the federal district is experiencing a shortage of water resources and belongs to the ecologically unfavorable regions of the country. The orientation of light industry to imported raw materials (mainly from the Central Asian republics) put light industry in plight. Therefore, the development of the industry should focus on strengthening its own raw material base through the development of flax growing in the most favorable natural and climatic regions of the country - the Central, North-Western, northern regions of the Volga Federal Districts.

The effective development of the food market is possible only with the creation of a modern developed infrastructure. To do this, it is necessary to accelerate the implementation of the program for the development of wholesale food markets, exchanges, fairs, create a state system of information on the market for agricultural raw materials and food, and organize a wide network of information and consulting services for producers.

The creation of joint-stock companies, various types of partnerships, agricultural cooperatives, associations of peasant and farm enterprises, along with the development of profitable collective farms and state farms, will ensure the formation of a diversified economy for the better use of local conditions and resources.

It is advisable to attract foreign investors to develop the most promising areas of the economic complex. The existing system of financial relations between the state and agricultural producers also needs to be improved. It is necessary to create a special lending fund with preferential conditions and the provision of loans not only to profitable enterprises, but also to those farms that, based on the use of credit, can conduct expanded reproduction, and in agricultural areas - financial and industrial groups of the agrarian direction. Financing of agricultural enterprises in this case is carried out at the expense of forward deliveries of products, and the allocated funds are directed to the implementation of effective programs in agro-industrial production.

One of the necessary conditions for the development of market relations is the creation of market infrastructures not only in industrialized areas, but also in regions that are far behind economically.

It is important to conduct a rational demographic policy. Raising the living standards of the population of the country and the district will increase the birth rate in the region.

In this issue, we are completing the publication of the journal version of the monograph by the head of the Department of State and Legal Disciplines of the Volga Region Branch of the Russian Law Academy of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation, Candidate of Legal Sciences, Associate Professor K.V. Cherkasov "The system of public authorities and administration at the level of the federal district"<*>.

<*>See: Legislation and economics. 2008. No. 10, 11, 12.

Essential characteristics of federal districts in the Russian Federation

Within the framework of this study, it is impossible not to touch upon the issues of the legal nature of the federal districts themselves, because they act as spatial and territorial boundaries within which the structural divisions of the central offices of federal state bodies, territorial bodies of federal state bodies formed at the level of the federal district, exercise their powers. So, seven federal districts were established in the Russian Federation: Central (center - Moscow), North-Western (center - St. Petersburg), North Caucasian, soon renamed Southern (center - Rostov-on-Don )<1>, Privolzhsky (center - Nizhny Novgorod), Ural (center - Yekaterinburg), Siberian (center - Novosibirsk), Far East (center - Khabarovsk).

<1>Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of June 21, 2000 N 1149 "Issues of ensuring the activities of the apparatus of plenipotentiary representatives of the President of the Russian Federation in the federal districts" (as amended and supplemented) // SZ RF. 2000. N 26. Art. 2748.

In the right opinion of some authors, the text of the Basic Law of the country does not contain provisions directly providing for the possibility of establishing a system of federal districts in the country.<2>. Some researchers even see the creation of federal districts as a key institution for building paraconstitutionalism in Russia, building a parallel governance structure that duplicates the institutionally fixed mechanism of power.<3>. At the same time, what was repeatedly noted by the former head of state, and some federal, regional politicians, the decision to form federal districts does not contradict the current Constitution of Russia<4>. This is confirmed by a number of its provisions, in particular, that the federal structure and territory of the Russian Federation is under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation.

<2>See: Borodin E.I. Legal problems of strengthening executive power in the conditions of modern Russian statehood // Power vertical: problems of optimizing the interaction of federal, regional and local levels of power in modern Russia: Sat. reports and messages of the international conference. June 2001 / Ed. ed. V.G. Ignatov. Rostov-on-Don, 2001. Issue. 4. S. 25; Degtev G.V. Modern Russian federalism: features of the legal status and the main directions of its improvement: Dis. ... cand. legal Sciences. M., 2001. S. 109; Ilyukhin V.I. On the problem of the institute of presidency in Russia // The Constitution as a symbol of the era: In 2 volumes / Ed. S.A. Avakyan. T. 1. M., 2004. S. 410 - 415; Shaimiev M.Sh. Development Strategy of the Republic of Tatarstan // Bulletin of the Volga Academy of Public Administration. 2001. N 1. S. 19; Sharov Yu. Russian federalism: structural changes have begun // Federalism. 2000. N 3. S. 77.
<3>See: Preobrazhensky S. The fate of the residents // Our power: deeds and faces. 2008. N 2. S. 51; Saqua Richard. Accountability, constitutionalism and some models of power in post-communist Russia // Comparative constitutional review. 2008. N 2. S. 68.
<4>See: Abdulatipov R. Seven steps leading to the center // Rossiyskaya Gazeta. 2000. May 20; Putin V.V. Power must be working! // Russian newspaper. 2000. May 19; For the sake of strengthening statehood // Rossiyskaya Gazeta. 2000. May 16.

A device model similar to the model of federal districts was also formed in some subjects of the Federation. So, back in the early 1990s. in Moscow, a system of 10 administrative districts in the form of prefectures was formed and is still functioning quite effectively, which, in turn, are divided into municipalities. Since 2000, management zones similar to federal districts have been created in the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), Sverdlovsk, Nizhny Novgorod regions<5>. In addition, in the Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of January 24, 1997 N 1-P "On the case of checking the constitutionality of the Law of the Udmurt Republic of April 17, 1996 "On the system of state authorities in the Udmurt Republic"<6>the legal position of the highest body of constitutional justice in Russia is clearly expressed, according to which the territory of a subject of the Federation can be divided not only into municipalities, but also into administrative-territorial units in which the state power of a subject of Russia is exercised.

<5>See: Usyagin A. Contradictions and gaps in the modern territorial structure of Russia // Federalism. 2005. N 4. S. 83.
<6>Bulletin of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. 1997. No. 1.

In this regard, for the convenience of exercising its powers, the central federal government also has the right to conditionally divide the entire territory of the country into certain administrative and managerial units, regardless of their specific name, in addition to the generally accepted federal division of the country into the territory of the subjects of the Federation. De facto, the existence of a new level of state administration in the form of federal districts was recognized by the Russian public, and its legitimacy is not disputed today. In addition, there is a certain historical experience in the creation and functioning of administrative districts in Russia. Thus, in the pre-revolutionary period of the development of our country, there were judicial, military, educational and a number of other districts on its territory designed to optimize public administration.

Federal districts also exist in world practice, where two types of them are traditionally distinguished. In federal states (for example, the United States, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Nigeria), there is only one federal district and is a capital with an adjacent territory or a sparsely populated region. The status of the federal district in different federations is different. For example, in the USA it is not included in the number of subjects of this state, and in Brazil such a district has, in fact, the same status as the state (with some differences). In general, the federal district there is an integral part of the state, although with special status- has many, but not all, features of a subject of the federation and is directly subordinate to the central government, which is due to the performance of metropolitan functions and the political significance of the capital<7>.

<7>See: Avtonomov A.S. Constitutional (state) law of foreign countries. M., 2006. S. 362; Constitutional law of foreign countries / Ed. M.V. Baglaia, Yu.I. Leibo, L.M. Antin. M., 2005. S. 484; Constitutional (state) law of foreign countries. General part / Ed. B.A. Scary. M., 1996. T. 1. S. 142 - 143, 686 - 687; Chirkin V.E. Constitutional law of foreign countries. M., 2006. S. 416.

In addition, both in federal and unitary states, there are other, special administrative districts, created depending on the specifics of the object of management according to the territorial-sectoral principle. They function exclusively within the management vertical. Thus, in the United States, there are about two dozen varieties of special districts, including school, fire, sanitary, park, environmental, sewer, water and energy supply, healthcare, etc. There are similar districts in Canada (school, police, health, water, etc.). However, if in the United States governments operating in certain special districts have the right to independently seek sources of funding for their activities, then in Canada governments in special districts are financed exclusively from the funds of the respective budgets. There are also special special districts created to ensure the performance of the functions of federal state bodies relating to issues of the exclusive jurisdiction of the federation.

Special districts are not subjects of the federation, independent administrative-territorial units and, as a rule, do not coincide with the boundaries of the territories of the subjects of the federation. The purpose of creating special districts is to ensure effective administration in a particular industry and solve problems that are either not within the competence of state authorities of the constituent entities of the federation, or that are resolved at the interregional level. At the same time, bodies and individual officials in special districts usually implement technical and executive functions.<8>.

<8>See: Avtonomov A.S., Bachilo I.L., Bondarenko A.A., Grishkovets A.A. etc. Executive power in Russia. History and modernity, problems and development prospects. To the 80th anniversary of the Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences / Ed. ed. N.Yu. Khamanev. M.: New legal culture, 2004. S. 181 - 192; Nekrasov S.I. Federal districts: legal nature, formation, problems, prospects // Constitutional system of Russia / Ed. Yu.L. Shulzhenko and A.N. Lebedev. Issue. 4. M.: Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2003. P. 99 - 100.

It can be stated with certainty that the federal districts in Russia are something completely different from those in the above-mentioned foreign countries, and do not belong to either the first or the second group. The legal nature of the federal district in some foreign states is closer to the status of such an independent subject of the Federation as the city of Moscow - the capital of Russia, a city of federal significance, in others - to the status of special, largely non-coinciding departmental districts of federal executive bodies. Federal districts are new administrative and managerial structures resembling formations of a state-territorial type. They have much in common with other formations of the federal government (in the system of the customs industry, districts for arbitration courts) and are also established by the federal government. However, federal districts are of greater importance than ordinary administrative districts, they perform functions that are not characteristic of them. As a structure, they were originally created not by the federal executive or judiciary, but by the head of state. Consequently, the federal districts are not sectoral or functional formations, but are created to manage state affairs in their entirety within the framework of federal competence.<9>.

<9>See: Manokhin V.M. To the question of the state-legal status of the federal district // Bulletin of the Saratov State Academy of Law. 2002. No. 1 (30). S. 9.

In essence, the federal districts are an element not stipulated, but allowed by the Constitution of Russia, updated in order to optimize public administration, they are an instrument of federal regulation of territorial development. These are special formations, their establishment is associated with a number of specific factors and the need to solve such priority tasks as restoring the governability of the state, ensuring its stability and sovereignty, strengthening the power vertical, improving conditions for control over the activities of the territorial structures of federal government bodies.

The issues of strengthening Russian statehood and strengthening the federal presence in the regions are closely intertwined with the problem of improving federal relations and constitute a two-pronged process. To this day, the latter are not completed, they are characterized as transitional. In this regard, the establishment of federal districts, in the fair opinion of most authors, should be regarded as one of the administrative ways to search for forms and methods of managing the system of federal relations, reforming them, smoothing out the problems of excessive asymmetry and multi-subjectivity of Russia, strengthening the federal center and the vertical of power<10>. The formation of federal districts seems to be one of the most important measures to improve federal relations within the framework of the current Constitution of Russia, a technological rationalization of the federal structure of the country, which has become an adequate response to the crisis of administrative regionalism. The meaning of the existence of federal districts is seen in the need for territorial approximation of the federal government to the subjects of the Federation; implementation of the interaction of the center with the regions, the accumulation of regional problems in order to jointly search for compromise solutions and pool the resources of the state to resolve them by making an adequate management decision; unification to a certain level of relations between the central government and all subjects of Russia, regardless of the principle underlying their formation.

<10>See: Bezrukov A.V. Problems of interaction between the Russian Federation and its subjects in the sphere of executive power // Journal of Russian Law. 2001. N 1. S. 112; Gabrichidze B.N., Eliseev B.P., Chernyavsky A.G. Constitutional Law of Modern Russia: Textbook. M., 2001. S. 188; Gligich-Zolotareva M.V., Dobrynin N.M. Federal state and self-organization: experience of synergetic analysis // Federalism. 2007. N 1. S. 20; Dobrynin N.M. Federalism: historical and methodological aspects. Novosibirsk, 2005, p. 129; Kiryanov A.Yu. Regional security in the system of national security // Russian judge. 2005. N 9. S. 39 - 40; Krayushkin I.A. Institute of Plenipotentiary Representatives of the President of the Russian Federation in the System of State Power of Russia // Scientific Works. Russian Academy of Legal Sciences. Issue. 4: In 3 vols. T. 1. M .: Yurist, 2004. S. 406 - 409; Medushevsky A. Bonapartist model of power for Russia? // Constitutional Law: Eastern European Review. 2001. N 1. S. 166; Sakva R. Russian federalism at the crossroads // Comparative constitutional review. 2005. N 1. S. 178; Federalism: theory, institutions, relations (comparative legal research) / Ed. ed. B.N. Topornin. M., 2001. S. 79 - 80.

The solution to most conflicts, many problems of the formation and development of federal relations in Russia, the country's exit from the protracted crisis lies in the economic plane. Without resolving the problems affecting the economic foundations of federalism, the creation of a stable federal state is impossible. To paraphrase the founder and ideologist of social communism, K. Marx, we note: in the final analysis, the “fate” of a federation is determined primarily by socio-economic federative relations. The federal districts contribute to the pooling of federal and regional resources allocated to the socio-economic development of the constituent entities of the Federation, the joint solution of regional economic problems in the event of the inability of the constituent entities of Russia to resolve them independently, as well as the development of production forces at the interregional level. Subjects of Russia with different levels of economic development can coordinate their efforts and integrate comprehensively within the boundaries of federal districts. The result is a general economic effect for a number of subjects of the Federation. Some issues of the socio-economic development of the territories, having rallied, the subjects of Russia can solve independently, without attracting significant funds from the federal budget<11>.

<11>See: Zagorovskaya T.V. Federalism in Russia: problems and development prospects // Constitutional and municipal law. 2008. No. 14. S. 19; Leksin V.N., Shvetsov A.N. State and regions (theory and practice of state regulation of a territorial entity). M., 2000. S. 83 - 85; Sachuk T. New quality of regional policy in the context of combining the interests of the state and territories // Federalism. 2005. N 1. S. 124 - 125.

Allowing to provide organizational and economic mechanisms for the growth of regional economies, the federal districts are able to level out the asymmetry of the socio-economic development of the regions, which is most dangerous for the existence of a federal state, which makes it possible to optimize the economic foundations of Russian federalism. The formal unification of the subjects of the Federation into federal districts and, as a result, the identification of issues common to the regions creates the conditions for their consolidation, leveling the asymmetry of socio-economic development, reducing the degree of separatism, centrifugal aspirations and, ultimately, strengthening the unity of the economic and political space, the territorial integrity of the state. In addition, the interregional nature of the federal districts makes it possible to exercise federal state control at an intermediate level, helping to resolve the inevitable conflicts in the state-administrative sphere both between the center and the regions, and between the subjects of the Federation, and in some cases preventing them. If we figuratively imagine Russia as a barrel, consisting of fragments - subjects of the Federation, then the federal districts play the role of hoops, pulling these elements into a single whole. There are sufficient grounds to believe that the links "center - federal district", "center - a separate subject of the Federation", "federal district - a separate subject of the Federation", "federal district - federal district", bilateral and multilateral relationships between the subjects of Russia create an effective system of unity Russian society<12>.

<12>See: Belyanina I.V. The role of federal districts in shaping the ideas of federalism // Postgraduate student and competitor. 2005. N 5. S. 18; Pliev A.G. Strengthening the vertical of power and the formation of civil society in the subjects of the Southern District. The vertical of power: problems of optimizing the interaction of federal, regional and local levels of government in modern Russia: Sat. reports and messages of the international conference. June 2001 / Ed. ed. V.G. Ignatov. Rostov-on-Don, 2001. Issue. 3. S. 14; Senyakin I.N. Federalism as a principle of Russian legislation. Saratov, 2007. S. 259 - 260.

Despite the fact that the federal districts are practically self-sufficient in terms of the existing infrastructure and socio-economic opportunities, they should not be considered as some kind of independent and independent structures, and even more so as quasi-states or peculiar federations within the borders of Russia. The subjects of the Federation are not confined within the federal district, their public authorities independently interact with public authorities of other regions located in other federal districts, and on certain issues and to a limited extent - with public authorities of foreign states and their constituent parts.<13>. Thus, in particular, in accordance with the Orders of the Government of the Russian Federation of June 28, 2008 N 950-r, of July 17, 2008 N 1020-r, proposals were adopted by the government of the Republic of Tatarstan and the Council of Administration of the Krasnoyarsk Territory, agreed with the relevant federal bodies of state authorities, on the signing of the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Tatarstan and the Government of Turkmenistan, as well as the Agreement between the Administration Council of the Krasnoyarsk Territory and the Government of the Republic of Belarus on trade, economic, scientific, technical and cultural cooperation<14>.

<13>See: Savka O.G., Chudesov V.V. The main directions of international relations of the Far Eastern subjects of the Russian Federation with the countries of Northeast Asia // Power and management in the east of the country. 2007. N 3 (40). pp. 141 - 146; Plotnikova O. Forms and experience of international relations of Russian regions // State Service. 2005. N 2. S. 72 - 76.
<14>SPS "Consultant Plus".

The importance of horizontal ties between the subjects of the Federation for the development of sustainable federal relations necessitates their strengthening and strengthening. The commonality and uniformity of the socio-economic problems of a number of subjects of the Federation located in different federal districts, in some cases objectively dictates the expediency of their simultaneous resolution. So, at the federal level, due attention is paid to the comprehensive solution of issues of socio-economic development of Russian subjects located within the Far Eastern and part of the Siberian Federal Districts.<15>. Based on the results of the working meeting of the plenipotentiaries of the President of the Russian Federation in the Urals and Volga federal districts on December 14, 2000 in Perm, the development and implementation of interdistrict cooperation mechanisms were recognized as a priority task. The basic principle of this interaction was the inadmissibility of defining federal districts as border, self-sufficient in relation to each other.<16>.

<15>See, for example: Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of February 23, 2007 N 127 "On Approval of the Regulations on the State Commission for the Socio-Economic Development of the Far East, the Republic of Buryatia, the Irkutsk and Chita Regions" // SZ RF. 2007. N 10. Art. 1241.
<16>Minutes of the working meeting of the Plenipotentiaries of the President of the Russian Federation in the Urals and Volga Federal Districts of December 14, 2000 // Archive of the Office of the Plenipotentiary Representative of the President of the Russian Federation in the Volga Federal District. 2000

Weakening the tendencies of isolation and self-locking, characteristic of the subjects of Russia, the federal districts ensure the deepening and development of both vertical and horizontal federal ties, give impetus to supra-subject cross-border ties, symbolize a gradual transition from "soft" interregional associations of economic interaction between subjects of the Federation to "hard" ones. forms of regulation of integration processes. At the same time, the federal districts at the institutional level resolve the issue of fixing intersubject corporations, to a certain extent contribute to the emergence of regional corporatism, regional autonomy granted and allowed by the central government from above in accordance with federal law. On the one hand, this makes it possible to ensure the development of the state as a single "organism", on the other hand, to release the initiative on the ground, to preserve the state integrity and a single economic, political, legal space and at the same time the independence of the subjects of Russia in exercising their own competence. In addition, the unification of regions into federal districts gives them the opportunity to jointly defend their common positions before the central government. The implementation of state sovereignty takes place with the active participation in this process of the subjects of Russia and together with them, but with the dominance of the federal center within the constitutional framework, which makes it possible to build a subsidiary state on the basis of mutual responsibility of the authorities.

Thus, in the decision to form federal districts, one can see the desire of the central government to create in some way macro-regions of the Russian Federation, due to territorial, natural, infrastructural, demographic and ethnocultural features. Unfortunately, in scientific literature today there is no single unified concept of not only the macro-region, but also the region<17>. However, if the features and criteria for highlighting the latter, at least in general view, but still available in the Basic Provisions of the Regional Policy of the Russian Federation, the first one has not yet been given due attention<18>. The adoption of the Federal Law "On State Regional Policy in the Russian Federation", which establishes its basic concepts, principles, goals, priorities and implementation mechanisms, will make it possible to correct this situation.

<17>See: Bashkunov A.A. Socio-political security of the region of the Russian Federation: state and trends // Law and Politics. 2007. N 8. S. 30 - 31; Maklakov V.V. Constitutional law of foreign countries. A common part. M., 2006. S. 811 - 812; Oleh L.G. Regionalism and federalism. Novosibirsk, 1998, p. 124; Orekhovich A.V. On the issue of the concept of "region" in constitutional law // Constitutional and municipal law. 2008. N 3. S. 13 - 17.
<18>See: Verbatim report on the meeting of the Council under the President of the Russian Federation for Science, Technology and Education November 30, 2007 // Official website of the President of the Russian Federation: http://www.kremlin.ru.

The creation of federal districts does not threaten the federal structure of Russia. The point of view existing in the legal literature that the establishment of a system of federal districts leads to a breakdown of the existing federal structure, a phased abandonment of federalism in Russia, a return to unitarism in domestic construction, and even a strengthening of the authoritarian regime in the country, does not have sufficient solid grounds.<19>. The authors who adhere to this judgment, apparently, put an equal sign between a centralized federal and a unitary state. At the same time, legal thought has long come to the realization that the relationship of "subordination to power" along the vertical is an integral feature of the state in any society. Public administration is characterized not only by the normative setting of goals, objectives and functions, but also by certain administrative procedures, discipline, a clear order of relationships in the executive power system, subordination, accountability and responsibility for the results of managerial work.<20>.

<19>See: Busygina I.M. Political regionalism: Proc. allowance. M., 2006. S. 87; Varlamova N.V., Skurko E.V. The Russian Federation and its subjects: the problem of strengthening statehood // State and Law. 2001. N 7. S. 92, 96; Vedyakhin V.M. The Form of the Russian State: Theory and Practice // Law and Politics. 2006. N 3. S. 69; He is. On the Form of the Russian State // State Power and Local Self-Government. 2006. N 6. S. 5 - 6; Lysenko V. Development of federal districts and the future of the federal structure of Russia // Federalism. 2002. N 3. S. 169 - 170; Lysenko V.N. Development of Federal Districts and the Future of the Federal Structure of Russia // Federalism: Russian and International Dimensions (Experience of Comparative Analysis) / Ed. R. Khakimova. Kazan, 2004, pp. 457 - 458; Salenko A.V. Russia is a unitary Federation: paradox or reality? // Jurisprudence. 2001. N 2. S. 72 - 73; Safiullin F. Disintegration of Russia: Has the Process Begun? // Russian Federation today. 2001. N 23. S. 43; Usyagin A. Contradictions and gaps in the modern territorial structure of Russia // Federalism. 2005. N 4. S. 93, 96; Cherepanov V.A. federal reform in Russia. M., 2007. S. 138.
<20>See: Vishnyakov V.G. Constitutional regulation of federal relations // State and law. 1998. No. 12. S. 22; Starilov Yu.N. Administrative Law: At 2 pm Part 2. Book One: Subjects. Governing bodies. Public service. Voronezh, 2001, p. 83.

Centralization is synonymous with the state, its necessary attribute. Centralization and decentralization are two types of management that mutually determine each other and characterize a different degree of distribution of power, responsibility and control along the vertical. Being opposite and multifaceted in their essence, centralization and decentralization constitute a unity in which both principles are in a kind of competition, which gives an incentive to develop and improve the relationship between different levels of public authority. The mobility of such unity is manifested in a deviation towards either centralization or decentralization, and stability - in the establishment of a relative balance in their ratio. Each state of this unity depends on the specific internal and external situation in which this or that country finds itself. Centralism, although to a certain extent contrary to federalism, is not in itself a negative phenomenon, since it allows for the advantage of a unified administration that prevents abuses of power in the localities. At the same time, decentralization is by no means equivalent to federalism. For modern system management, it is necessary to find an optimal balance between centralism and democracy, a combination of their elements in various spheres of state and public life <21>.

<21>See: Avakyan S.A. Constitutional Law of Russia: In 2 vols. M., 2006. T. 2. S. 35; Bogdanova N.A. Centralization and decentralization: correlation of values // Centralism, democracy, decentralization in the modern state: constitutional and legal issues. Materials of the international scientific conference. Moscow, April 7 - 9, 2005 / Ed. S.A. Avakyan. M., 2006. S. 14, 16; Butusova N.V. Is Administrative Reform in Russia a Path to an Efficient State? // Administrative law and process. 2005. N 1. S. 19; Butusova N.V. Centralization and decentralization of state power: objective criteria for the optimal combination // Centralism, democracy, decentralization in the modern state: constitutional and legal issues. Materials of the international scientific conference. Moscow, April 7 - 9, 2005, p. 95; Citizens V.D. Control theory: Tutorial. M., 2005. S. 178; Chepunov O.I. Centralization and decentralization in administrative reform // "Black holes" in Russian legislation. 2008. N 1. S. 76 - 78; Shishova Zh.A. Centralization: what are the limits? // Legislation and economics. 2007. N 1. S. 12 - 13.

Both in a unitary and in a federal state, the executive power, by virtue of its appointment, must be unified, precisely and steadily implementing the state's institutions. Only the methods (methods) used to ensure this unity depend on the form of government. One should join the point of view of V.E. Chirkin, who believes that "the unity of power as a unity of fundamental goals and directions in the activities of state bodies can have a positive meaning in society, focusing the efforts of the state apparatus on solving the problems facing society", and, in addition, "two main models of organizing state power - the separation of powers and the unity of state power are not exclusive." On the contrary, "the separation of powers does not cancel the interaction of the branches of power, the unity of state policy on fundamental issues, the unity of actions of all branches in line with the main goals and objectives of states"<22>.

<22>Chirkin V.E. Fundamentals of comparative state studies. M., 1997. S. 93, 94.

The federal type of government does not at all imply "immeasurable" decentralization, a serious reduction in the role of the federal center in the management system of the most important areas of the state's functioning. It relies on a special kind of centralism, achieved by optimizing the power functions of the federal center and the powers of the subjects of the federation, where individual elements of centralization are not only permissible, but are objectively necessary on issues of the unity and state integrity of the country. In this sense, federalism presupposes a fairly rigid centralization. The formula "without a federal element there is no federation, without a unitary element there is no state" applies. A viable federation without a unitary component is impossible<23>.

<23>See: Isensee. Idee und Gestalt des Foderalismus im Grundgesetz // Isensee / Kirchhof. Handbuch des Staatsrecht der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Heidelberg, 1990. B. III. 98 A. Rdn. four; Narliev T. On the issue of delimitation of subjects of jurisdiction between the federal center and subjects of the federation // Power. 2006. N 6. S. 26; Ebzeev B.S. The Constitution of the Russian Federation: direct action and conditions for implementation // State and Law. 2008. No. 7. S. 11; He is. Man, people, state in the constitutional system of the Russian Federation. M.: Legal publishing house, 2005. S. 418 - 496.

The desire to create a social state (which, in accordance with Article 7 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation is Russia), which should ensure the same standard of living for the population throughout the country, regardless of the economic differentiation of the subjects of the Federation, requires a centralized legal regulation, a single redistribution of wealth and the alignment of inter-regional differences. Of course, in a sense, the idea of building a welfare state in practice conflicts with the task of a traditional federal state to protect the diversity of regions.<24>. However, within the framework of a single federal state, the diversity of regions should be understood exclusively as the specifics of the subject of the Federation, determined by its geopolitical position. Only in this case, diversity as a phenomenon will carry the function of unity, preservation, and not destruction of the statehood and territorial integrity of the federation.

<24>See: Hesse K. Fundamentals of the constitutional law of Germany. M., 1981. S. 117.

Taking into account the large territorial size of the Russian Federation and the observed significant regional differences, the restoration of a rigid vertical of public power from top to bottom, as well as the solution of almost all issues at the federal level, is hardly possible. The socio-political and economic situation does not currently allow for a full-scale reform, the result of which could be the creation of a single unitary Russian state. The purpose of the transformation of territorial administration is seen in the strengthening of centralization within the federation, the formation of Russia as a centralized federation. The full implementation of this model seems to be the most adequate and productive strategy to avoid the extreme of regional anarchy and over-centralization. In this sense, a centralized federal state is synonymous with a strong state with its inherent features. At the same time, this trend is a natural stage from a historical point of view, characteristic of the Russian people and the state, an attempt to overcome many of the negative consequences of public administration in the past.<25>.

<25>See: Vishnevsky B. Races along the "vertical", or new attempts to rein in the governors // Russian Federation today. 2001. N 3. S. 14; Luzhkov Yu.M. Russia: search for a way // Official. 1999. N 5. S. 19; Zamyshlyaev D.V. Transformation of the state structure of Russia in the 80s - 90s of the XIX century // Constitutional and municipal law. 2004. N 5. S. 17; Nevinsky V.V. Centralization of state-legal regulation in Russia: conditions, limits // Russian legal journal. 2006. N 1. S. 68; Podberezkin A. What should be the Russian state? // Browser. 2000. N 2. S. 7; Putin V.V. Russia at the Turn of the Millennium // Nezavisimaya Gazeta. 1999. Dec 30; Putin V.V. There will be neither revolutions nor counter-revolutions // Parliamentary newspaper. 2001. 4 Apr.

In the legal literature, there is an opinion that the creation of a system of federal districts led to the emergence of a multi-level system of state structure of the country, a change in the federal and administrative structure of Russia, the formation of seven macro-subjects of the Russian Federation, the creation of independent, autonomous units of an alternative division of the Russian Federation, a three-level system of administrative-territorial division<26>. One can hardly agree with this point of view. Federal districts do not make any changes to the territorial structure of Russia, to the legal status of the subjects of the Federation, do not change their territorial boundaries. They themselves are not independent subjects of Russia. The unification of the subjects of the Federation into federal districts is mostly conditional, formal. In other words, the federal districts are "abstract, phantom aggregates of subjects of the Russian Federation", "the result of cutting" the country's territory in the interests of more efficient and closer to the regions of public administration<27>.

<26>See: Bartsits I. Thoughts on administrative reform in the year of the decade of the Constitution of the Russian Federation // Federalism. 2003. N 3. S. 30; Dobrynin N.M. Constitutional legal science and Russian constitutionalism: in search of a way out of the systemic crisis // Law and Politics. 2007. N 6. S. 6; He is. New federalism: a model for the future state structure of the Russian Federation. Novosibirsk, 2003, p. 40; He is. Federalism and constitutionalism in Russia: correlation, reality, conformism // Law and Politics. 2006. No. 8. S. 79; Medushevsky A.N. Comparative constitutional law and political institutions: a course of lectures. Moscow: GU-HSE Publ., 2002, pp. 294 - 370; Mirzoev G.B., Makanova I.Yu. Institute of Plenipotentiary Representative of the President of the Russian Federation. M., 2002. S. 46; Shvetsov A. Regional policy in the Russian unitary Federation // Federalism. 2008. N 2. S. 21.
<27>See: Aleksandrov V.M., Semenov A.V. Status and prospects for the development of federal districts of the Russian Federation // Jurisprudence. 2002. N 3. S. 88; Degtev G.V. Institute of Presidency in the Russian Federation. Features of the legal status and competence, problems of improvement: Abstract of the thesis. dis. ... doc. legal Sciences. M., 2005. S. 39; Zamyshlyaev D.V. Problems of the hierarchy of legal acts in the Russian Federation // State power and local self-government. 2003. N 1. S. 14; Muravyov A.A. Development of the state structure of the Russian Federation as a factor in improving the system of regional governance: Dis. ... doc. legal Sciences. M., 2003. S. 198, 227; Nekrasov S.I. Federal districts: legal nature, formation, problems, prospects // Constitutional system of Russia / Ed. Yu.L. Shulzhenko and A.N. Lebedev. Issue. 4. M.: Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2003. P. 97 - 121; Senyakin I.N. Russian federalism: problems and development trends // Legal culture. 2006. N 1. S. 42; Stolyarov M., Belenko N. Three stages in the development of federalism in post-Soviet Russia // Federalism. 2006. N 3. S. 55; Uglanova O.A. Federal districts in the mechanism of strengthening the territorial integrity and unity of the Russian Federation // Bulletin of the Saratov State Academy of Law. 2007. N 1 (53). S. 74; Fedosov P.A., Valentey S.D., Solovey V.D., Lyubovny V.Ya. Prospects for Russian federalism: federal districts; regional political regimes; municipalities // Political studies. 2002. N 4. S. 160.

Unlike the constituent entities of Russia, the federal districts do not have their own state authorities, the ability to conduct their own legal regulation and other signs that determine the status of a constituent entity of Russia. All bodies operating today in the federal districts are bodies of federal state bodies. The spatial boundaries of the federal districts may be changed by the head of state without the consent of other public authorities. In the political and legal sense, such categories as "territory", "population" of the federal district do not exist.<28>. It is also noteworthy that, according to the Regulations on the Plenipotentiary Representative, the Plenipotentiary Representative of the President of the Russian Federation in the federal district interacts with state authorities of the subjects of the Federation "located within the federal district", and not within it. However, in official documents there is a wording about the subjects of Russia, "which are part of the federal district."

<28>See: Busygin A. Federal districts: present and future // Federalism. 2003. N 3. S. 74; Syskova I. Constitutional and legal foundations of the institution of plenipotentiaries of the President of the Russian Federation in federal districts // Public Service. 2004. N 1. S. 104 - 106; Chertkov A.N., Plugina I.V. Institute of Plenipotentiary Representatives of the President of the Russian Federation in Federal Districts // Law and Politics. 2006. N 2. S. 32; Federalism: theory, institutions, relations (comparative legal research) / Ed. ed. B.N. Topornin. S. 80.

Today, the system of federal districts in a broad sense should be viewed as a transition from a two-tier "federal center - subjects of the Federation" to a three-tier "federal center - federal districts - subjects of the Federation" structure of state administration in the federal government. In this sense, federal districts act as an inter-regional level of exercise by state bodies of federal powers. However, taking into account the fact that the sphere of activity of the structures of federal state bodies (including executive authorities) does not in all cases coincide with the federal districts, as well as the absence of such, in the narrow sense they act as the territorial sphere of activity of the head of state<29>.

ConsultantPlus: note.

Article by K.V. Cherkasov "Federal districts in the state structure of Russia" is included in the information bank according to the publication - "Administrative and municipal law", 2008, N 3.

<29>See: Cherkasov K.V. Federal districts in the state structure of Russia // Legal culture. 2008. N 1. S. 69 - 80.

Thus, the federal districts must be considered not as territorial units or the basis of a new state division, but as a sphere of managerial influence. When determining their legal nature, first of all, they should be spoken of as entities within which authorized representatives of the President of the Russian Federation at the interregional level ensure the implementation of the policy of the head of state on the ground. This was also pointed out by V.V. Putin: "The essence of the formation of federal districts is not the enlargement of the regions, but the consolidation of the structures of the presidential vertical within the territories"<30>. Analysis of the essence of the federal districts without connection with the authorized representatives of the President of the Russian Federation and other district state bodies leads to erroneous judgments and conclusions about their place in the structure of Russia. At the same time, the centralized and for the most part uniform managerial influence of federal state bodies on processes in federal districts in one way or another contributes to the formation on their basis of some, even from a legal point of view, formal (at least for now), but nevertheless territorial entities. , conditionally capable of being called "proto-territorial formations".

State and place of federal districts in the system of other interregional formations in Russia

The study of the federal districts reveals their significant subjective difference among themselves. The total number of subjects of the Federation located in the federal districts is as follows: in the Central Federal District - 18 (Belgorod, Bryansk, Vladimir, Voronezh, Ivanov, Kaluga, Kostroma, Kursk, Lipetsk, Moscow, Oryol, Ryazan, Smolensk, Tambov, Tver, Tula, Yaroslavl region, Moscow); in the Northwestern Federal District - 11 (Republics of Karelia, Komi, Arkhangelsk, Vologda, Kaliningrad, Leningrad, Murmansk, Novgorod, Pskov regions, St. Petersburg, Nenets Autonomous District); in the Southern Federal District - 13 (Republics of Adygea (Adygea), Dagestan, Ingushetia, Kabardino-Balkarian Republic, Republic of Kalmykia, Karachay-Cherkess Republic, Republic of North Ossetia-Alania, Chechen Republic, Krasnodar, Stavropol Territory, Astrakhan, Volgograd, Rostov regions); in the Volga Federal District - 14 (Republics of Bashkortostan, Mari El, Mordovia, Tatarstan (Tatarstan), Udmurt Republic, Chuvash Republic - Chuvashia, Perm Territory, Kirov, Nizhny Novgorod, Orenburg, Penza, Samara, Saratov, Ulyanovsk regions); Ural Federal District - 6 (Kurgan, Sverdlovsk, Tyumen, Chelyabinsk regions, Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug - Yugra, Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug); in the Siberian Federal District - 12 (Republics of Altai, Buryatia, Tyva, Khakassia, Altai, Krasnoyarsk, Trans-Baikal Territories, Irkutsk, Kemerovo, Novosibirsk, Omsk, Tomsk regions); in the Far Eastern Federal District - 9 (Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), Primorsky, Kamchatka, Khabarovsk Territories, Amur, Magadan, Sakhalin, Jewish Autonomous Regions, Chukotka Autonomous District).

A certain alignment of the federal districts according to this criterion is achieved due to the location in the central and southern strip of Russia of small subjects of the Federation, as well as the location of the basic sectors of the economy. Different geographically located subjects of the Federation and, consequently, the differentiation of individual regions in terms of their economic development, economic potentials has become one of the main reasons for the difference between federal districts in a number of significant socio-economic characteristics:

by territory;
by population (historically, the most populated is the European part of the country);
for the production of gross regional product;
in terms of production of industrial, agricultural products, social services;
in the field of financial and budgetary sphere, foreign trade operations<31>.

<31>See: Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of October 11, 2001 N 717 "On the Federal Target Program" Reducing Differences in the Socio-Economic Development of the Regions of the Russian Federation (2002 - 2010 and up to 2015) "(as amended and supplemented). ) // SZ RF. 2001. N 43. Article 4100; Program of socio-economic development of the Russian Federation for the medium term (2006 - 2008) Approved by Order of the Government of the Russian Federation of January 19, 2006 N 38-r // SZ RF 2006. N 5. St. 589; Bakhtizin A. Reduction of inter-regional differentiation of problem regions // Federalism. 2008. N 2. P. 41 - 54. Kononov V. V., Orlov I. V. Some problematic aspects of the future federal structure of the Russian Federation // Constitutional and municipal law. 2003. N 5. P. 38; Kuleshov V. V., Marshak V. D. Analysis of the development of the economy of federal districts: financial aspect // Region: economics and sociology. 2003. N 1. pp. 3 - 13. On the prospects for the development of the economy of federal districts // Region: Economics and sociology. 2003. N 4. S. 6 - 14; Suslov V.I., Ershov Yu.S., Ibragimov N.M., Melnikova L.V. Economics of federal districts of Russia: comparative analysis // Region: economics and sociology. 2003. N 4. S. 47 - 63.

At the same time, despite the reduction in the subject composition of Russia<32>The list of federal districts, unfortunately, has not undergone any changes in terms of its internal content, and therefore requires appropriate clarifications.

<32>See: Federal Constitutional Law of March 25, 2004 N 1-FKZ "On the formation of a new subject of the Russian Federation as part of the Russian Federation as a result of the unification of the Perm Region and the Komi-Permyatsk Autonomous Okrug" (with the last amendment and add.) / / SZ RF. 2004. N 13. Art. 1110; Federal constitutional law of October 14, 2005 N 6-FKZ "On the formation of a new constituent entity of the Russian Federation as part of the Russian Federation as a result of the unification of the Krasnoyarsk Territory, the Taimyr (Dolgano-Nenets) Autonomous Okrug and the Evenk Autonomous Okrug" // SZ RF. 2005. N 42. Art. 4212; Federal constitutional law of July 12, 2006 N 2-FKZ "On the formation of a new subject of the Russian Federation as part of the Russian Federation as a result of the unification of the Kamchatka region and the Koryak Autonomous Okrug" // SZ RF. 2006. N 29. Art. 3119; Federal constitutional law of December 30, 2006 N 6-FKZ "On the formation of a new subject of the Russian Federation as part of the Russian Federation as a result of the unification of the Irkutsk region and the Ust-Orda Buryat Autonomous Okrug" (with the last amendment and addition) // СЗ RF. 2007. N 1 (part I). Art. one; Federal constitutional law of July 21, 2007 N 5-FKZ "On the formation of a new constituent entity of the Russian Federation as part of the Russian Federation as a result of the unification of the Chita region and the Aginsky Buryat Autonomous Okrug" // SZ RF. 2007. N 30. Art. 3745.

The composition of the federal districts includes subjects of the Federation, formed both according to the national-territorial and administrative-territorial principles. Some authors see this as a feature of the federal districts. According to their point of view, federal districts are “completely special formations, which may include republics (states) that are different in nature, nature and conditions of formation of a republic (state), administrative-territorial units - territories and regions, cities of federal significance, autonomous formations - an autonomous region, autonomous districts, i.e. formations, units of a different nature, which leads to the complexity, diversity of the composition of federal districts, the peculiarities of their status "<33>. At the same time, this statement does not quite correspond to the basic principle of Russian federalism established by Article 5 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation - the principle of equality of the subjects of the Federation in relations with the federal state authorities.

<33>Gabrichidze B.N., Chernyavsky A.G. Administrative Law of Russia: Textbook. 2nd edition, revised and enlarged. M., 2006. S. 93.

For this reason, it is difficult to agree with the opinion of Yu.M. Luzhkov that when considering the issue of granting a special status to some subjects of the Federation, they may be assigned the right to permanently or temporarily stand out from the federal districts. It is assumed that on the territory of such constituent entities of Russia the system of federal executive authorities and the management of its divisions are organized in a different way, and the highest officials of the constituent entities of the Federation may be vested with the rights of heads of federal districts. At the same time, the author does not clearly define what should be understood as the special status of the region and does not formulate its grounds.<34>. The only exception, in the case of its entry into Russia as an equal subject of the Federation (unification on a different basis is hardly advisable), may be the Republic of Belarus. However, such a measure can only be temporary. After carrying out the necessary organizational and legal measures related to the unification of states, the territory of the Republic of Belarus should also be within the boundaries of the corresponding federal district (due to the geographical location of the supposedly Central Federal District), which will significantly accelerate its integration with other regions of Russia. A similar situation, but in the Southern Federal District, may arise if South Ossetia and Abkhazia join the Russian Federation.

<34>See: Yu.M. Luzhkov. Path to an effective state: a plan for the transformation of the system of state power and administration in the Russian Federation. M., 2002. S. 37 - 38.

As the centers of the federal districts, the largest, industrially and industrially developed cities in the regions - the administrative-territorial centers of the constituent entities of Russia - are determined. Cultural, economic and transport links are historically concentrated in them. Since none of them is located on the territory of the republics, autonomous districts, autonomous region, it can be assumed that the location of the centers of the federal districts is largely due to political considerations federal central government. The centers of federal districts are not always such from a geographical point of view. In this regard, the wording "the plenipotentiary is located in the center of the federal district" enshrined today in Article 12 of the Regulations on the authorized representative needs to be clarified. It is more expedient to state this norm in the following wording: "The authorized representative is located on the territory of the corresponding federal district in a place determined by the President of the Russian Federation, taking into account the proposals of the authorized representative and state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation located on the territory of the federal district. The location of the authorized representative is the center of the federal county"<35>.

<35>See: Cherkasov K.V. On the issue of the territorial sphere of activity of plenipotentiaries of the President of the Russian Federation in federal districts // Modern law. 2007. N 5. S. 44.

The sizes and subject compositions of the seven federal districts basically and for the most part coincide with the territories of the eight interregional associations of economic interaction of the constituent entities of the Federation: "Chernozemye", "North-West", "Siberian Agreement", "Great Volga", "Great Ural", " Central Russia", "Far East" and "North Caucasus", the impetus for the creation of which was the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of November 11, 1991 N 194 "On ensuring conditions for enhancing the role and interaction of the republics within the RSFSR, autonomous entities, territories and regions in the implementation of radical economic reform"<36>. They, like the federal districts, conditionally unite the territories of the border regions. The exception is the Central Federal District, located on the territory of two associations - "Chernozemye" and "Central Russia"<37>. The observed slight discrepancy between the territorial limits and subject compositions of federal districts with similar components of interregional associations of economic interaction of subjects of the Federation is explained by the fact that the central government, when determining federal districts, proceeded not only from economic considerations. First of all, administrative, political, ethno-national factors were taken into account, the desire to exclude separatist tendencies in domestic relations prevailed. In other words, the impossibility of exact copying of managerial and economic moments was the reason for some insignificant deviation from purely economic expediency.

<36>Vedomosti SND i VS RSFSR. 1991. N 47. Art. 1596.
<37>See: Gokhberg M.Ya. Federal districts of the Russian Federation: analysis and prospects for economic development. M., 2002. S. 13; Information. The list of federal districts, associations of economic interaction between subjects of the Russian Federation and economic regions // Federalism. 2000. N 3. S. 251 - 253; Lobretsov N.L., Seliverstov V.E. Strengthening the power vertical and institutional structures of interregional integration // ECO. 2000. N 9. S. 43.

Associations of economic interaction of subjects of the Federation, in essence, are public self-governing interregional associations created to regulate their economic activity based on common interests<38>. They did not have and do not have clear and uniform administrative bodies capable of making decisions that are binding on the state authorities of the constituent entities of Russia and, therefore, ensure the implementation of these decisions. The situation did not significantly change either by granting the right to the heads of associations of economic interaction of the subjects of the Federation - the heads of the executive authorities of the subjects of the Federation to participate in meetings of the Government of Russia, and giving them the right to participate in the activities of the Government of the Russian Federation on an equal basis with federal ministers, and the regular participation of Deputy Prime Ministers of Russia in meetings and other events of associations of economic interaction of subjects of the Federation<39>. Therefore, associations of economic interaction between the subjects of the Federation, unlike the federal districts and out of touch with them, do not have a significant impact on interregional integration, improve the efficiency of managing economic processes, and do not allow creating an additional managerial link. The leadership of the Kirov region, for example, included in the Volga Federal District, after that also considered it necessary to join the Greater Volga Association for Economic Interaction of Federation Subjects.

<38>See: Federal Law No. 211-FZ of December 17, 1999 "On general principles organization and activities of associations of economic interaction of subjects of the Russian Federation "(with the last amendment and add.) // SZ RF. 1999. N 51. St. 6286.
<39>See: Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of September 22, 1998 N 1142 "On the structure of federal executive bodies" (as amended and supplemented) // SZ RF. 1998. N 39. Art. 4886; Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of December 20, 2006 N 1901-r // СЗ RF. 1997. N 2. Art. 325; Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of May 21, 1997 N 706-r // СЗ RF. 1997. N 22. Art. 2635.

Certain authors, not without reason, believe that the activities of the association for economic interaction of the subjects of the Federation even contribute to the initiation of separatist tendencies, strengthening the political ambitions of regional elites in crisis situations.<40>. In a number of cases, the opposition of associations of economic interaction of subjects of the Federation to the central government in many cases was not so much economic as political. The practice of registering the statutes of associations of economic interaction of subjects of the Federation by the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation did not allow changing the situation.<41>. Thus, in the mid-1990s, The Association for Economic Interaction of the Subjects of Russia "Siberian Agreement" for political purposes has repeatedly put forward an ultimatum from the federal government demanding significant concessions in the public sector and in matters of transfer of property<42>. Perhaps this can explain the attitude of the plenipotentiaries of the President of the Russian Federation in the federal districts to the associations of economic interaction of the constituent entities of the Federation, for the most part, as competing or useless structures. As a result, they have become "appendages" of the apparatuses of plenipotentiaries or long time didn't intend to.

<40>See: Glazunova N.I. The system of state and municipal government. M., 2006. S. 578; Mamonov V.V. Constitutional foundations of Russia's national security. Saratov, 2002, p. 104; Ryzhov V. Strange federation: problems and prospects for the development of federalism in Russia // Politiya. 1999 - 2000. N 4. S. 96.
<41>See: Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of June 5, 1994 N 636 "On the registration of charters of voluntary associations (associations) of economic interaction of subjects of the Russian Federation" // SZ RF. 1994. N 7. Art. 770.
<42>See: Teplyakov A.A. Association for socio-economic cooperation as a factor in ensuring stability and security // State and municipal management. 2000. N 2. S. 167.

In this regard, the currently existing some overlap of boundaries and subject compositions of associations of economic interaction between subjects of the Federation and federal districts should be considered sufficient from the point of view of management. Moreover, in the short term, the system of associations of economic interaction between the constituent entities of the Federation, as in many respects a duplicating structure, can and should be completely replaced by the federal districts. However, some scientists and politicians have considered associations of economic interaction between subjects of the Federation, and are often still considered, as a prototype of a large subject of the Federation or a conglomerate of subjects of Russia.<43>. However, the current state and legal status of associations of economic interaction of the constituent entities of the Federation does not allow one to talk about them even as an economic basis for the association of constituent entities of Russia.

<43>See: Vorobyov A.P. On the issue of administrative reform // Official. 2000. No. 1 (7). S. 13; Zagorodnikov A. The prototype of the future structure of Russia? Interregional associations of economic cooperation - 10 years // Russian Federation today. 2000. N 7. S. 21; Zubkov K.I. Interregional associations and their role in the political and institutional system of relations between the center and the regions // Institutional aspects of regionalism in the general European context. Yekaterinburg, 1996, p. 58; Ivanov V.V. Russian federalism and domestic contractual policy. Krasnoyarsk, 1997, p. 100; Rudenko V.N. Associations of Economic Interaction of Subjects of the Russian Federation: Legal Status and Role in the Formation of Federal Relations // Constitutional Law: East European Review. 1999. N 4. S. 127 - 137; Uss A.V. Russian federalism: development priorities // Journal of Russian law. 1999. N 9. S. 19.

To a certain extent, the federal districts are comparable to the established economic zoning of the country. Economic regions in Russia are parts of the territory, the national economy of the country, distinguished by certain uniform natural conditions, demographic features, settlement, specialization and complexity of the economy and the social sphere, which determine their place in the country's economy, and limited by the administrative boundaries of the subjects of the Federation located on them. There are 11 economic regions in Russia: Northern, Northwestern, Central, Volga-Vyatka, Central Black Earth, North Caucasian, Volga, Ural, West Siberian, East Siberian, Far East. Some authors separately single out the Kaliningrad region as an economic region.<44>.

<44>See: Gokhberg M.Ya. Federal districts of the Russian Federation // ECO. 2001. N 3. S. 107 - 108; Kistanov V.V. The federal districts of Russia are an important step in strengthening the state. M., 2000. S. 31 - 32; Pechenev V.A. "Time of Troubles" recent history Russia (1985 - 2003). M., 2004. S. 60; Taps D. Conceptual Foundations of Federalism: Monograph. St. Petersburg: Legal Center Press, 2002. P. 108.

Economic regions, like federal districts, formally unite the constituent entities of Russia, which are different in terms of natural, economic and labor potential, economic structure and level of development, industrial specialization and social composition. At the same time, they are less comparable to each other than the federal districts, and only the subject composition of the Far Eastern Federal District completely repeats the composition of the Far Eastern Economic Region. The rest of the federal districts include subjects of the Federation belonging to different economic regions. For example, The Volga Federal District unites the subjects of the Russian Federation of three economic regions: Volga-Vyatka, Volga and Ural<45>.

<45>See: Information. The list of federal districts, associations of economic interaction between subjects of the Russian Federation and economic regions // Federalism. 2000. N 3. S. 251 - 253.

Limit values of social economic indicators by federal districts differ less from each other than similar indicators by economic regions. This is evidenced by the characteristics of their economies, financial potential, financial security and social sphere. These differences decreased in terms of territory from 36 to 9 times, in terms of population - from 7 to 5. Similar dynamics is mainly observed in other economic and social indicators. To the greatest extent, the disproportion between the federal districts in comparison with the economic regions has decreased in the sphere of industrial production, foreign trade turnover, and tax revenues to the country's budget system. Only in terms of the level of development of the agricultural sector and the export of petrochemical products, economic regions differ less than federal districts<46>. In addition, for seven administrative ties between the center and the federal districts, there are on average eleven ties between the federal district and the constituent entities of the Federation. Whereas when using a grid of economic regions, the proportions of links are reversed - eleven and seven. Obviously, from the point of view of the controllability of the territories of the state, the number of connections of federal districts is preferable.

<46>See: Savelyev V. Development of federal districts (macroeconomic forecast) // Obozrevatel. 2001. N 10. S. 44 - 47; Skatershchikova E. Federal districts - new economic-geographical and socio-economic formations // Russian Economic Journal. 2000. N 11 - 12. S. 78.

In addition, it is expedient to use economic regions to address issues of integrated development of the economy in their territories, economic state forecasting, and also for the purposes of indicative planning of Russia's territorial development. Federal districts - to solve inter-regional problems of economic and political integration, to ensure the implementation of local administrative decisions of the federal government. So, from the point of view of Yu.A. Tikhomirov, federal districts, in contrast to economic regions, act more as administrative and coordinating centers<47>. In addition, in the fair opinion of a number of authors, the existing grid of economic regions was formed back in the Soviet period (apart from partial changes in 1961-1963) and today needs to be revised.<48>. It can be assumed that the experience of the functioning of the federal districts over time is able to initiate the process of changing the foundations of the economic zoning of Russia.

<47>See: Yu.A. Tikhomirov. On the Modernization of the State // Journal of Russian Law. 2004. N 4. S. 12.
<48>See: Adamescu A.A., Granberg A.G., Kistanov V.V., Semenov P.E. and others State-territorial structure of Russia (economic and legal foundations) / Ed. A.G. Granberg, V.V. Kistanov. M.: DeKA, 2003. S. 211; Gokhberg M.Ya. Federal districts of the Russian Federation: analysis and prospects for economic development. M., 2002. S. 7.

In the legal literature there is a point of view according to which the boundaries and centers of the federal districts are determined taking into account the boundaries and locations of the headquarters of the military districts<49>. Indeed, in accordance with Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of July 27, 1998 N 900 "On the military-administrative division of the Russian Federation"<50>seven military districts were formed: Leningrad, Moscow, North Caucasian, Volga, Ural, Siberian and Far East. Moreover, according to Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of August 5, 2002 N 846 "Issues of the activities of military councils" (as amended and supplemented)<51>plenipotentiaries of the President of the Russian Federation in the federal districts and deputy plenipotentiaries are included by the President of Russia in the military councils of military districts, groups of troops, armies, fleets and flotillas (commands).

<49>See: P. Akopov, S. Babaeva. Downsizing // Izvestia. 2000. May 13; Kozyrev M., Bulavinov I. Wild Angel of the Revolution // Kommersant-Vlast. 2000. N 20. S. 3; Buchwald E. Consolidation of regions: a prospect or a surrogate for reforming federal relations // Federalism. 2004. N 4. S. 146; Kotikova N. Constitutional Paradox // Constitutional Law: East European Review. 2000. N 2. S. 111; Markhgeim M.V. Constitutional parameters of the vertical of power in Russia // State and municipal management. 2001. N 1. S. 65.
<50>SZ RF. 1998. N 31. Art. 3839.
<51>SZ RF. 2002. N 32. Art. 3165.

However, the federal and military districts did not quite coincide in their subject compositions, their names and centers did not fully correspond to each other, not to mention the fact that the goals of their formation are also different.<52>. In particular, the headquarters of the Volga and Siberian military districts were located in the cities of Samara and Chita, respectively, the Nizhny Novgorod region was part of the Moscow military district. To date, in accordance with Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of March 24, 2001 N 337s "On ensuring the construction and development of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, improving their structure"<53>there was an enlargement of the military districts, they became not 7, but 6. The previously independent Volga and Ural military districts were united into one military district - the Volga-Urals. In addition, taking into account the specifics of the geopolitical position and geographical isolation of the Kaliningrad region from the main part of the Russian Federation on its territory as an independent military-administrative unit that is not part of the military districts, back in 1998 the Kaliningrad special region was formed. It should be borne in mind: in 2005, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation announced the upcoming global reform of the Russian Armed Forces, during which, instead of the existing military districts, it is planned to establish regional departments or directions: the Far East ("East"), Central Asia ("South" ), Western European ("West"). The main goal of this reorganization is to build the structure of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation for a more effective fight against the terrorist threat.<54>.

<52>See: Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of July 27, 1998 N 901 "On Approval of the Regulations on the Military District of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation" (as amended and supplemented) // SZ RF. 1998. N 31. Art. 3840.
<53>SZ RF. 2001. N 14. Art. 1326.
<54>See: Katkov V.Yu. Federal districts in the Russian Federation (constitutional and legal analysis): Dis. ... cand. legal Sciences. M., 2006. S. 73 - 74.

The interregional associations of municipalities almost completely coincide with the federal districts: "Association of Siberian and Far Eastern Cities", "Cities of the Urals", "Association of Cities of the South of Russia", "Union of Cities of the North-West of Russia", "Association of Cities of the Volga Region". The latter now carry out the functions of representative offices of the Congress of Municipalities of the Russian Federation in the federal districts, as well as interaction with state authorities formed at the level of the federal district<55>. This traces the continuation of the one that originated in the mid-90s of the XX century. tendencies to strengthen federal power in the field by approaching local communities and assisting them in solving emerging problems, but at a different, more advanced institutional level.

<55>See: Kozhevnikov O.A. Problems of legislative regulation of organizational forms of intermunicipal cooperation in the Russian Federation // State power and local self-government. 2006. N 5. S. 33, 37; The system of municipal government / Ed. V.B. Zotov. SPb., 2007. S. 92.

A comparative study of the federal districts and other interregional formations existing in Russia allows us to draw the following conclusion. On the one hand, unlike existing other entities, federal districts contribute to the creation of real prerequisites for increasing the efficiency of centralized management of the country's socio-economic development and ensure the implementation of a strategy for building public administration at the regional and interregional levels. On the other hand, they take into account, to the extent necessary, the location and subject composition of inter-territorial formations, the current economic zoning of the country, the specifics of the organization of the basic sectors of the economy, transport infrastructure. This allows state bodies at the level of the federal district to use the experience accumulated in the process of functioning of inter-territorial formations, to carry out their functions on the basis of already established economic and, to some extent, political ties. In general, there are sufficient grounds to believe that the boundaries of the federal districts were deliberately defined in such a way that, in order to level the political claims of the excessively strengthened regional elites, their influence on the territorial bodies of federal government bodies did not completely coincide with the boundaries of other existing interregional formations.

Federal districts in the issue of changing the state-territorial structure of the Russian Federation

The formation of federal districts in many respects testifies not only to the objective need for them as such, but also to the need to improve the federal structure of Russia, as well as a steady trend towards consolidation of territorial units. As some researchers rightly point out, the historical, geographical, natural resource, demographic and linguistic community, political, economic, transport, trade and financial ties, the common interests of the regions within the federal districts cannot but lead to the integration of territorially close subjects of the Federation.<56>. In this regard, the establishment of federal districts by a number of authors is considered as an attempt to solve the problems of the imperfection of the existing state structure of the country, as well as a measure aimed at further consolidation of the subjects of Russia as the next stage after the formation of federal districts.<57>.

<56>See: Gligich-Zolotareva M.V. The subject composition of the Russian Federation: the era of change has already begun // State and Law. 2006. N 10. S. 15; She is. Legislative base of federal relations: prospects for improvement // Journal of Russian law. 2002. N 7. S. 53.
<57>See: Zayats D.V. The beginning of a new administrative-territorial reform? // Geography. 2000. N 21. S. 1 - 2; Noskov V. Seven? Boldly... // Rossiyskaya Gazeta. 2000. May 17; Tatarkin A., Basargin V., Yurpalov S., Vazhenin S. Ural district: economic and social expectations // Federalism. 2001. N 1. S. 91.

The problem of enlargement of the subjects of the Russian Federation has long been actively discussed in the pages of legal literature. Without dwelling in detail on the proposed plans for reforming the territorial division of Russia, we point out the following. Federal Constitutional Law of December 17, 2001 N 6-FKZ "On the procedure for admission to the Russian Federation and the formation of a new subject of the Russian Federation within it" (as amended and supplemented)<58>, despite its imperfection, provides for the possibility of forming a new subject within Russia as a result of the merger of two or more adjacent subjects of the Federation. However, there is still no consensus on the issue of the expediency of enlarging the subjects of Russia, as well as the scheme, the final result and the process of its flow, it is largely ambiguous.<59>. Nevertheless, there are more than enough arguments to justify the need to enlarge the subjects of the Federation.<60>.

<58>SZ RF. 2001. N 52 (part I). Art. 4916.
<59> See, for example: Adamescu A., Kistanov V., Savelyev V. Economic zoning as the basis of the territorial structure of Russia // Federalism. 1998. N 1. S. 111 - 134; Annenkova V.G. Constitutional and legal institutions of the unity of the Russian state. Saratov, 2005, pp. 30 - 33; Bezrukov A. Dangerous gaps in the legal regulation of territorial transformations of the Russian Federation // Federalism. 2006. N 3. S. 115 - 126; Valentey S. Three challenges to Russia // Federalism. 2000. N 4. S. 27; Veletminsky I. Ten locomotives of Vladimir Yakovlev. The Ministry of Regional Development puts the consolidation of regions on stream // Rossiyskaya Gazeta. 2005. 28 Apr.; Galkin A.A., Fedosov P.A., Valentey S.D., Solovey V.D. The evolution of Russian federalism // Political research. 2002. N 3. S. 107; Gligich-Zolotareva M.V. Consolidation of subjects of the Federation: pro et contra // Federalism. 2002. N 1. S. 93 - 108; Dobrynin N.M. Russian federalism: problems and prospects // State and Law. 2003. N 11. S. 87; Zamyshlyaev D.V. The main ways of optimizing the political and territorial structure of the Russian Federation // Constitutional and municipal law. 2004. N 3. S. 28 - 32; Zubov A.B. Unitarianism or federalism. To the question of the future organization of the state space of Russia // Political Studies. 2000. N 5. S. 52 - 53; Karapetyan L.M. Federal structure of the Russian state. M., 2001. S. 120; Kistanov V.V. Enough 20 - 28 provinces. Toward the reform of the state-territorial structure // Russian Federation today. 2002. N 20. S. 48 - 50; Konyukhova I.A. Modern Russian federalism and world experience: the results of formation and development prospects. M., 2004. S. 304 - 315; Konyukhova I.A. Structure of the Russian Federation: current state and prospects for improvement // State and Law. 2007. N 2. S. 37 - 45; Lagutenko B. Russia needs an administrative-territorial reform // Federalism. 2001. N 1. S. 118 - 126; Leksin I.V. On the issue of reforming the territorial structure of Russia // Law and Power. 2001. N 1. S. 113 - 128; Leksin I.V. Problems of legal regulation of the grounds and procedure for changing the composition of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation // Constitutional and municipal law. 2008. N 8. S. 13 - 17; Orlov I.V. Federal structure of Russia, the need for change // Constitutional and municipal law. 2004. N 3. S. 7 - 9; Solomatkin A.S. Territorial organization of the Russian state (state-legal issues): Abstract of the thesis. dis. ... doc. legal Sciences. M., 1996. S. 32; Steshenko L.A. Multinational Russia: state-legal development of the 10th - 21st centuries. M., 2000. S. 349, 353; Tarasyuk V.M. Trends in the territorial development of Russia and internal geoeconomics // State power and local self-government. 2008. N 5. S. 21; Uss A.V., Bezrukov A.V., Kondrashev A.A. Problems of formation of subjects of the Russian Federation and changes in their constitutional and legal status in the context of the prospects for Russian federalism // Journal of Russian Law. 2004. N 7. S. 27 - 29; Fartygina N. Variants of the administrative-territorial division of Russia: problems and judgments // Arguments and Facts. 2005. June 17; Yurchenko V.M. Conflictogenic factors of political sovereignization // State and municipal management. 2001. N 1. S. 147.
<60>See, for example: Annenkova V.G. Prospects for the Development of Federalism in the Russian State // History of State and Law. 2006. N 1. S. 16 - 17; Baranov S., Skufina T. New approaches to assessing interregional differentiation // Federalism. 2005. N 1. S. 47 - 92; Gaiduk V. Does the two-level political and legal system of Russian federalism have a future? // Public service. 2008. N 3. S. 111 - 114; Ermakov V.G. Constitutional and legal regulation of the processes of federalization of the state structure of Russia: Abstract of the thesis. dis. ... doc. legal Sciences. M., 2001. S. 27; Kazakov A. Russian ethnic federalism: a threat to the integrity of the country? // Federalism. 2004. N 1. S. 31 - 46; Karmanov A.Yu. House on the Sand, or Some Thoughts on the Foundations of Russian Federalism // Journal of Russian Law. 2001. N 4. S. 29; Kirpichnikov V., Bargandzhiya B. Formation of an effective system of power and management within the framework of the current Constitution of Russia // Federalism. 2001. N 1. S. 29; Lavrovsky B. Regional alignment in Russia. Is it possible and necessary? // Political class. 2006. N 3. S. 53 - 58; Leksin I.V. Systemic bases for transformations of the territorial structure of the state and evaluation of arguments "from the economy" // Russian Economic Journal. 2003. N 4. S. 61 - 79; Sobyanin S.S. Formation legal mechanisms overcoming disproportions of regional development as a stage of improvement of federal relations in Russia // Law and Politics. 2007. N 1. S. 46 - 47; Hanson F. Federalism with a Russian Face: Regional Inequality, Administrative Functions and Regional Budgets in Russia // Comparative Constitutional Review. 2005. N 2. S. 115 - 127.

At the same time, in the short term, the republics (both economically self-sufficient and subsidized), as well as most of the territories and regions formed during the Soviet period of the country's development, can hardly become participants in the process of consolidation of the subjects of the Federation.<61>. Moreover, the current Constitution of Russia does not allow for a full-scale change in the territorial division of the Russian state only by uniting the subjects of the Federation. An obstacle to this is the provisions of Articles 5, 65, 66 of the Basic Law of the country. Consistent implementation in practice of the Federal Constitutional Law of December 17, 2001 N 6-FKZ "On the procedure for admission to the Russian Federation and the formation of a new subject of the Russian Federation in its composition" may lead to the fact that there will be no subject of the Federation belonging to one of the fixed in the Constitution of Russia of types of subjects of the Federation. For example, there will be no autonomous region, autonomous regions.

<61>General patterns of globalization and subjects of the federation // State and Law. 2008. N 6. S. 10 - 11.

However, when deciding on the merger of certain subjects of the Federation and the formation of a new subject of the Federation, the central authorities have sufficient powers to successfully block the occurrence of this situation, including not supporting the initiative of the interested regions to form a new subject within the Russian Federation.<62>. But in this case, ultimately ignoring the opinion of the population of the relevant subjects of the Federation will lead to a violation of the foundations of the democratic foundations of Russian society enshrined in the Basic Law of the country. Otherwise, amendments to the indicated articles of the Constitution of the Russian Federation will be required. However, despite the different, sometimes diametrically opposed perceptions in the legal literature in the light of statements by representatives of the federal government about the inexpediency of amending the country's Basic Law today as not having "exhausted its potential", this is unlikely.<63>. In addition, there is still no federal constitutional law on the Constitutional Assembly of the Russian Federation, which, according to the Russian Constitution, is the only body competent to decide on its revision.

<62>See: Avtonomov A.S., Ivanov V.V. New in the constitutional law of Russia: treaties as a source of regulation of the association of subjects of the Russian Federation // State and Law. 2007. N 4. S. 26 - 27; Kravets I.A. Constitutional and legal regulation of the change in the composition of the Russian Federation and the names of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation // State and municipal administration in Siberia: state and prospects: State and law: Materials of the international scientific and practical conference. February 26 - 27, 2007, Novosibirsk / Ed. ed. I.V. Knyazev. Novosibirsk: SibAGS, 2007, pp. 121 - 122; Kulchevsky V.V. Formation of new subjects within the Russian Federation: problems of legislative regulation // Constitutional and municipal law. 2007. N 10. S. 18, 20.
<63>See, for example: Avakyan S.A. The Constitution should not be amended, but changed // Russian Federation today. 1999. N 5. S. 34; Avakyan S.A. Constitution of Russia: nature, evolution, modernity. M., 1997. S. 215 - 217; Vinogradov V. The Constitution of Russia: a view 15 years later // Comparative constitutional review. 2008. N 3. S. 62 - 66; Vitruk N.V. Loyalty to the Constitution. M., 2008. S. 17; Gadzhiev G.A. On the issue of gaps in the Constitution // Gaps in the Russian Constitution and the possibility of its improvement. M., 1998. S. 24; Gligich-Zolotareva M.V. Improving the federal component of the Constitution: pro et contra // The Constitution as a symbol of the era: In 2 vols. Vol. 1 / Ed. S.A. Avakyan. M., 2004. S. 313 - 320; Eskina L.B. Constitutional reform in Russia: crisis or next stage? // Jurisprudence. 2001. N 2. S. 9 - 13; Zorkin V.D. On Threats to the Constitutional System in the 21st Century and the Need for Legal Reform in Russia // Journal of Russian Law. 2004. N 6. S. 4 - 5; He is. Russia and its Constitution // Journal of Russian Law. 2003. N 11. S. 3 - 9; Kerimov A.D. Problems of constitutional reform and state building in Russia. M., 2003. S. 4 - 5; Kuznetsov I. Russian constitutional reform: modeling the political agenda // Comparative constitutional review. 2005. N 3. S. 11 - 17; Lukyanova E.A. Some problems of the Constitution of the Russian Federation // Constitutional and municipal law. 2007. N 15. S. 4 - 9; Our duty is to treat the Constitution with care. Speech by the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin at a reception dedicated to the 10th anniversary of the adoption of the Constitution of the Russian Federation // Russian Justice. 2003. N 12. S. 1; Ovsepyan Zh.I. Gaps and defects as categories of constitutional law // Constitutional and municipal law. 2007. N 15. S. 10 - 16; Oseychuk V.I. On the need for a new stage of constitutional reform in Russia // Constitutional and municipal law. 2006. N 5. S. 6 - 11; Khabrieva T.Ya. Reforming the Constitution of the Russian Federation: Opportunity and Necessity // Journal of Russian Law. 2003. N 11. S. 22.

In general, the reform of the territorial structure of Russia that has begun and is being carried out today should be carefully weighed, be of an evolutionary, stage-by-stage nature, carried out on a democratic basis with respect for the rights and freedoms of both the individual and collective communities, taking into account the historical, economic, social, national, cultural and other factors. In itself, the reform for the sake of reform itself, the mechanical connection of the subjects of the Federation to each other does not make sense. The result of the enlargement of the subjects of the Federation should be an increase in the efficiency of the system of territorial administration, political and socio-economic efficiency, self-sufficiency of the subject structure of the Russian Federation and, as a result, an increase in the quality of life and well-being of Russian citizens. An ill-conceived unification of regions can give rise to destructive and destabilizing tendencies, create additional burdens on the federal budget, lead to negative socio-economic processes, loss of control over territories and the emergence of separatism. At the same time, at present, there is a lack of a state strategy for the consolidation of the subjects of Russia, a reasonable model for the optimal composition of the subjects of the Federation<64>. It is also important to realize that these territorial transformations will most likely cause a clarification of the boundaries of the federal districts and their internal structure. In this regard, there is a need to create at the state level a holistic scientifically based concept that provides for all the main issues that arise or may arise in the process of changing the subject composition of Russia.

<64>See: Dobrynin N. The inevitability of the systemic reconstruction of Russian federalism // Federalism. 2006. N 2. S. 89 - 104; He is. Reflections on the problems of improving federal relations in the Russian Federation and the participation of subjects of the Russian Federation in the socio-economic development of the state // Law and Politics. 2005. N 8. S. 6 - 7, 10; He is. Building a conceptual model of the new Russian federalism and a comprehensive, systems approach in optimizing federal relations // Law and Politics. 2004. N 3. S. 8; Zametina T.V. Constitutional foundations of the national policy of the Russian Federation. Saratov, 2006, pp. 194 - 197; She is. Constitutional and legal problems of regulation of the federal building of Russia // Gaps and defects in constitutional law and ways to eliminate them: Proceedings of the international scientific conference. Faculty of Law, Moscow State University M.V. Lomonosov. Moscow, March 28 - 31, 2007 / Ed. S.A. Avakyan. Moscow: Moscow University Press, 2008, p. 394; Klimov A. Consolidation of regions as a factor in the rehabilitation of "problem" territories // Russian Economic Journal. 2005. N 11 - 12. S. 45 - 46; Malchinov A. Constitutional and legal mechanisms of enlargement of subjects of the Russian Federation // Power. 2006. N 6. S. 27, 30 - 31; Senchagov V., Dadalko V., Bagin A. Consolidation of regions: goals and reality // Federalism. 2004. N 3. S. 5 - 36; Uglanova O.A. Formation of a new subject of the Russian Federation: legal policy and constitutional foundations // Legal policy and legal life. 2007. N 3. S. 186; Yusubov E.S. To the question of the unification of the subjects of the Russian Federation and the formation of new subjects of the Federation in its composition // The Constitution as a symbol of the era. pp. 369 - 375.

There is no doubt about the potentially important role of the federal districts in the reform of the territorial structure of Russia. At the same time, the point of view of a number of authors on the advisability of developing a consistent policy of transforming federal districts into subjects of the Federation and amalgamating regions to the size of existing federal districts is unacceptable.<65>. It seems that the new subjects of the Federation - the federal districts - will only at first glance make it possible to neutralize the "painful" issues of the territorial structure of Russia, since in fact their solution will be transferred to another level with the simultaneous generation of additional problems inherent in the new system. As a result, the substitution of federal districts for subjects of the Federation will have the following consequences.

<65>See: Katkov V.Yu. Federal districts in the Russian Federation (constitutional and legal analysis): Dis. ... cand. legal Sciences. M., 2006. S. 113; Koveshnikov E.M. State and local self-government in Russia: theoretical and legal foundations of interaction. M.: Norma, 2001. S. 236 - 237; Makarychev A.S. Federalism in the Age of Globalization: Challenges for Regional Russia // Political Studies. 2000. N 5. S. 87 - 88; Mamonov V.V. Constitutional foundations of Russia's national security. Saratov, 2002, p. 100; He is. State sovereignty and territorial integrity - the main principles of modern Russian statehood // State and Law. 2004. N 4. S. 8; Semenov A.V. Plenipotentiary representative of the President of the Russian Federation in the federal district (questions of theory and constitutional and legal regulation): Dis. ... cand. legal Sciences. SPb., 2004. S. 83; Uglanova O.A. Constitutional regulation of the subject composition of the Russian Federation: Abstract of the thesis. dis. ... cand. legal Sciences. Saratov, 2007. S. 22 - 23; Uglanova O.A. The role of the President in strengthening the territorial integrity and unity of the Russian Federation // Constitutional Readings. Interuniversity collection of scientific papers. Saratov, 2007. Issue. 8. S. 88 - 89.

Firstly, the implementation of such a plan for the territorial reorganization of Russia will sharply outline the problem of the legal status of the future subject of the Federation. On the one hand, it is not entirely clear whether the new subject of Russia will have the legal status of a republic, territory, region, city of federal significance, autonomous district, autonomous region, or any other legal status currently unknown to the Basic Law of the country. On the other hand, a situation may arise when none of the new subjects of the Federation acquires the legal status of at least one of the currently existing subjects of Russia (i.e., if some type of modern subjects of the Federation actually disappears in the future). Thus, we are talking about the occurrence of a situation similar to that considered earlier. In both cases, it will be necessary to amend the Russian Constitution. In addition, today the possibility of the process of unification of the republics with other subjects of the Federation, which is actually inevitable in this case, looks vague.

Secondly, the federal districts in terms of the pace of socio-economic development, as well as the location of scientific and industrial potential, differ significantly from each other. Practically cannot be compared in this regard, for example, the Siberian and Southern, Central and Far Eastern federal districts<66>. Therefore, giving federal districts the status of subjects of the Russian Federation will lead to the fact that the inequality of the socio-economic development of the current groups of subjects of the Federation located in certain federal districts is transformed into the inequality of the socio-economic development of federal districts - presumably new subjects of Russia. Consequently, a chance will be missed to minimize the socio-economic differences of the new subjects of the Federation by combining in them regions that are weakly and strongly developed in socio-economic terms. Taking into account the mutual influence of the "base" (economy and "superstructure") of law and politics, with the former playing a decisive role, this can subsequently also lead to legal inequality of the new subjects of Russia. Thus, the main goal of the territorial reorganization of the Russian state, represented in the neutralization of the negative aspects of the legal and socio-economic inequality of the existing subjects of Russia, will not be achieved.<67>.

<66>See: Baranov S., Skufyina T. Dynamics of inter-regional differentiation in 1998-2005 // Federalism. 2005. N 3. S. 47 - 76; Korepanov E. Investments and investment projects in federal districts and regions // Federalism. 2006. N 3. S. 127 - 146; Korepanov E. Science in federal districts // Federalism. 2001. N 3. S. 83 - 98; She is. Scientific potential of federal districts in the regional context // Federalism. 2002. N 3. S. 175 - 188; Nesterov L., Ashirova G. Provision with resources of Russian regions // Federalism. 2003. N 3. S. 235 - 242; Regions of Russia. Socio-economic indicators. 2006: Statistical compendium. M., 2007; Fedotov A. Investments and dynamics of economic growth in federal districts // Federalism. 2002. N 3. S. 211 - 224.
<67>See: Cherkasov K.V. Federal districts in the state structure of Russia // Administrative and municipal law. 2008. N 3. S. 38 - 43.

Thirdly, the formation on the vast territory of Russia of only seven subjects of the Federation within the boundaries of the existing federal districts, on the one hand, will actually mean the rejection of the federal state system and a return to unitarism in intrastate construction. On the other hand, a small number of large economically and politically self-sufficient territorial units will contribute to their transformation into "centers of collapse", "potential agents of sovereignization and redistribution of power and other resources" and the acquisition of excessively large "political weight" by the leaders of such subjects of Russia. It is extremely difficult to govern large, economically and politically powerful regions claiming sovereignty. The threat to the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation that has arisen in this case will become a serious and practically unsolvable problem for the federal center<68>. Thus, the implementation of the reform will have a result opposite to its purpose.

<68>See: Bezrukov A.V. Strengthening centralization: improvement or destruction of Russian federalism // Journal of Russian law. 2001. N 12. S. 31; Borisov I.B. Some practical aspects of the association of subjects of the Russian Federation // Lawyer. 2004. N 5. S. 68; Dobrynin N.M. Public administration reform as necessary condition formation of a new Russian federalism: theory and practice // Constitutional and municipal law. 2005. N 6. S. 9; Kitrinova O.V. Prospects for the development of federalism in Russia // Law and Politics. 2007. N 6. S. 34, 37; Plaksin M.A. Electoral reform in Russia from the point of view of system analysis and project management // Russian elections in the context of international electoral standards: Proceedings of the international conference / Ed. A.V. Ivanchenko and A.E. Lyubarev. M., 2006. S. 224; Chertkov A.N. Opportunities for improving the subject composition of the Russian Federation: legal aspects // Journal of Russian Law. 2005. N 11. S. 32, 39.

Fourthly, the establishment of large subjects of the Federation in the form of existing federal districts, which have more than significant territories in size, will lead to a significant complication of the organization of internal management in such subjects.<69>. In addition, most likely, there will be a need to transfer the centers of the federal districts to other geographical places, more or less equidistant from the borders of the proposed subjects of Russia. In turn, this will require significant financial costs, due, among other things, to the creation of an infrastructure corresponding to the status of the administrative center of the subject of the Federation.

<69>See: Dobrynin N.M. New federalism: a conceptual model of the state structure of the Russian Federation: Abstract of the thesis. dis. ... doc. legal Sciences. Tyumen, 2004, pp. 16, 45; Solovieva E.A. The constitutional and legal status of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation (the problem of asymmetry) / Ed. Yu.I. Skuratov. M.: New index, 2007. S. 129.

Fifthly, the enlargement of the subjects of the Federation to the size of today's federal districts is possible only if and in the process of implementing a full-scale not only administrative, but also constitutional reform in the country. However, such a change in the subject composition of the Russian Federation, at least for today, is undesirable. There are no precedents for such a cardinal consolidation of subjects of the federation in the world practice yet. It is hardly justified to make Russia with its poor experience of federalism, not fully strengthened statehood and "permanent political, economic and social instability" a testing ground for such a state-territorial experiment.<70>.

<70>See: Gligich-Zolotareva M.V. Legal basis federalism. M., 2006. S. 383 - 384, 388.

If we talk about the formation of the so-called nesting dolls, several levels of subjects of the Federation, a multi-level system of the federation in Russia (in other words, federations in the federation), or about the creation within the boundaries of supposedly new subjects of the Federation (federal districts) of a kind of "autonomies" in the form of existing today subjects of the Federation, this will require significant changes to the Basic Law of the country. In addition, a certain experience of the existence of a similar type of territorial division of the country has proven itself negatively on the example of the so-called complex subjects of Russia, where the main problem is to combine the principle of equality of all subjects of the Federation with the fact of the inclusion of autonomous entities (with the exception of the Jewish Autonomous Region and the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug)<71>into the compositions of territories and regions<72>. Unfortunately, it was not possible to finally resolve this problem both through the conclusion of tripartite and bilateral agreements on the delimitation of jurisdiction and powers between the relevant state authorities, and the highest body of constitutional justice of the Russian Federation<73>. There is no such "legal nonsense" in the practice of federal construction of foreign states<74>. In this regard, the current unification of previously independent subjects of the Federation (autonomous districts, regions) and the formation on their basis of new subjects of Russia (krais), as well as the conditional "attachment" of autonomous districts to the existing territory, region and thus the creation of a renewed region and areas can only be assessed on the positive side.

<71>Law of the Russian Federation of June 17, 1992 N 3056-1 "On the direct entry of the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug into the Russian Federation" // Bulletin of the SND and the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. 1992. N 28. Art. 1618.
<72>See, for example: Dobrynin N.M. Problems of legal regulation of relations of the region (region) with their constituent autonomous districts // State and Law. 1998. N 7. S. 46 - 50; Ivanov V.V. "Complex" Subjects of the Russian Federation: Constitutional Reality and Problems of Regulation of Internal Relations. Krasnoyarsk, 1998. Kinteraya A.G. Peculiarities of delimitation of subjects of jurisdiction and powers in complex constituent entities of the Russian Federation // Politics and Society. 2007. N 3. S. 51 - 56; Leksin I.V. "Complex regions": problems of forthcoming changes in the territorial structure of the Russian Federation // Formula of Law. 2005. N 1. S. 12 - 22; Maly A.F. Problems of Ensuring the Unity of the Legal Space in a Composite Subject of the Russian Federation // Constitutional Readings: Interuniversity Collection of Scientific Papers. Saratov, 2005. Issue. 6. P. 8 - 11; Ozhegina N.K. Constitutional and legal status of autonomous regions within the Russian Federation: problems and prospects: Dis. ... cand. legal Sciences. M., 2004. S. 12, 46 - 47; Sokolov A.N. Problems of federal constitutionalism in Russia // Constitutional and municipal law. 2007. N 11. S. 16; Sokolov A.N., Gubin Yu.I. Federalism in theory and practice - new approaches // Politics and society. 2006. N 7 - 8. S. 26; Chernoudova M.G. Topical issues of delimitation of powers between state authorities of a "complex" subject of the Russian Federation // Modern Russian statehood: theoretical and constitutional and legal aspects / Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, Moscow State University. N.P. Ogareva / Ed. A.R. Eremin. Saransk, 2007. S. 282 - 286.
<73>See: Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of May 11, 1993 N 9-P "On the case of checking the constitutionality of the Law of the Russian Federation of June 17, 1992 N 3056-1 "On the direct entry of the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug into the Russian Federation" // Vedomosti SND and Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, 1993, N 28, Article 1083; Decree of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of July 14, 1997 N 12-P "On the case of the interpretation of the provision contained in Part 4 of Article 66 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation on the inclusion of the Autonomous Okrug into the Krai , regions" // SZ RF. 1997. N 29. Art. 3581; Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of May 12, 2005 N 234-O "At the request of the meeting of deputies of the Nenets Autonomous Okrug on checking the constitutionality of paragraphs 2 and 3 of article 26.6, paragraph 2 of Article 26.16, paragraph two of clause 1 of Article 26.17 of the Federal Law "On the General Principles of Organization of Legislative (Representative) and Executive Bodies of State Power of the Subjects of the Russian Federation", paragraph three of Article 3 of the Federal Law Law "On Amendments and Additions to the Federal Law "On the General Principles of Organization of Legislative (Representative) and Executive Bodies of State Power of the Subjects of the Russian Federation", paragraph two of paragraph 4 of Article 56, paragraph 9 of Article 131, paragraph three of Article 135 of the Budget Code of the Russian Federation " // SZ RF. 2005. N 30 (part II). Art. 3201; Decree of the Tyumen Regional Duma of August 12, 2004 N 1570 "On the Agreement between the state authorities of the Tyumen Region, the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug - Yugra and the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug" // Tyumen News. 2004. 21 Aug.
<74>See: Chirkin V.E. On some problems of the reform of the Russian Constitution // State and Law. 2000. N 6. S. 6.

At the same time, taking into account the important role of the federal districts in strengthening federal horizontal ties between the subjects of the Federation, it seems that the federal district should act as a "testing ground" within which the policy of consolidation of the subjects of the Federation should be consistently implemented. Thus, in particular, an approximate plan for the unification of the Perm Region and the Komi-Permyatsky Autonomous Okrug into a new subject of the Federation - the Perm Territory, containing detailed description stages, its possible direct and indirect consequences, was developed in the Office of the Plenipotentiary Representative of the President of the Russian Federation in the Volga Federal District in March 2001 (three years before the unification of these regions)<75>.

<75>Archive of the Office of the Plenipotentiary Representative of the President of the Russian Federation in the Volga Federal District. 2001

According to the right opinion of some researchers, the federal districts are a reliable platform for the consolidation of the subjects of the Federation, the unification of their legal status, as well as a kind of alternative to the actual consolidation of the subjects of the Federation.<76>. This circumstance is of particular importance in terms of the prospects for the process of unification of the subjects of the Federation, which, from the point of view of specialists, can spread to the Nenets Autonomous Okrug and the Arkhangelsk Region, the Jewish Autonomous Region and the Khabarovsk Territory, the Altai Territory and the Altai Republic, the Krasnodar Territory and the Republic of Adygea, Tyumen and Kurgan regions, the cities of Moscow, St. Petersburg and the regions adjacent to them (primarily the Moscow and Leningrad regions)<77>.

<76>See: Dobrynin N.M. Federalism: historical and methodological aspects. Novosibirsk, 2005, p. 272; He is. Economic federalism in the Russian Federation: nature, practice, forecast // Law and Politics. 2006. N 7. S. 28; Syskova I. Constitutional and legal foundations of the institution of plenipotentiaries of the President of the Russian Federation in federal districts // Public Service. 2004. N 1. S. 107.
<77>See: Globalization and federalism // State and law. 2007. N 7. S. 11.

Enlarged territorial units should reduce the number and neutralize the severity of issues related to the state structure of the Russian Federation, but they are unlikely to be able to solve all of them. In itself, the consolidation of the subjects of the Federation is only the tip of the iceberg against the background of solving the problems of federalism and increasing the efficiency of state territorial administration. Therefore, in the future, in the system of federal relations and regional administration, it also seems appropriate to use interterritorial, intersubject management models - federal districts<78>.

<78>See: Cherkasov K.V. Federal districts in the mechanism of modernization of modern Russian federalism // Journal of Russian law. 2008. N 8. S. 19 - 24.

Prospects for Modernizing the Structure and System of Federal Districts in Russia

The analysis of the federal districts allows us to draw a conclusion about the existing problems and unresolved issues in the sphere of their construction, which to a certain extent hinder and reduce the efficiency of the functioning of state bodies at the level of the federal district. The real size of the federal districts gives rise to a number of management problems associated with the significant remoteness of their peripheries. At the same time, in the process of forming the federal districts, some of them included regions whose geographical location clearly does not correspond to the name of the districts. In particular, the Volga Federal District included the Republic of Udmurtia, Perm Territory, Orenburg Region, although geographically they belong to the Middle and Southern Urals accordingly and, following the logic, should have been part of the Urals Federal District. At the same time, the Volgograd and Astrakhan regions, belonging to the Nizhnevolzhsky region, are located on the territory of the Southern Federal District, not the Volga Federal District. A similar situation has developed as a result of the inclusion in the Ural Federal District of the Tyumen Oblast, Khanty-Mansiysk, Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrugs, which have long been associated with Siberia. In addition, the territory of the Perm Territory is part of the interregional association for economic cooperation between the constituent entities of the Federation "Big Ural" and the Ural economic region. The Tyumen region is "tied up" with two associations of economic interaction between the constituent entities of the Federation - the "Siberian Agreement" and the "Big Ural". Presumably in this regard, even before the unification process, the governor of the Perm region and the chairman of the regional Duma of the Perm region filed a joint official request with the President of Russia to include the Perm region in the Urals Federal District. However, this request was not granted.<79>.

<79>See: Katkov V.Yu. Federal districts in the Russian Federation (constitutional and legal analysis): Dis. ... cand. legal Sciences. M., 2006. S. 65 - 66.

Probably, this situation is connected with taking into account the micro-interregional ties of the subjects of the Federation, the desire of the central government to "align" the federal districts with each other economically, to make them comparable in terms of the level of economic development and the availability of natural resources. The goal of stabilizing the socio-political situation within the federal districts by including in their composition, if possible, an approximately equal number of subjects of Russia, formed both according to the national-territorial and administrative-territorial principles, is not excluded. Possible negative aspects of this are somewhat offset by the great similarity in the specialization of the border regions and, to a certain extent, can be compensated for by the activities of other inter-territorial formations of the Russian Federation.

Some objections are raised by the name "Central Federal District". Indeed, within the boundaries of this federal district there is a subject of the Federation - the city of Moscow, which has the status of the capital of the Russian Federation, where the vast majority of the highest and central federal government bodies are located. However, the geographically indicated federal district is not a central part of the territory of the Russian Federation. Moreover, as is known, today the location of one of the highest judicial bodies of Russia - the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation - is determined by another subject of the Federation - the city of St. Petersburg, the center of the North-Western Federal District. In addition, the issue of transferring both the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation to the city of St. Petersburg is currently being actively discussed. In this regard, it seems logical to rename the Central Federal District into the Southwestern Federal District.

There are enough circumstances that testify to the expediency of increasing the total number of federal districts in comparison with the existing one. However, the judgment of some authors about the need to create 12-15 federal districts in Russia does not have sufficient grounds for the following reasons<80>. Firstly, the proposed restructuring of the federal districts will lead to a disruption of the inter-subject relationships already established within the existing federal districts. Secondly, the nature of ties between federal districts and other inter-territorial formations will change prematurely and significantly. Thirdly, the inclusion in this case of a small number of subjects of Russia in the federal districts will become an obstacle to the accelerated integration of the largest possible number of regions within the framework of the federal district. Fourthly, the presence of excessively fragmented inter-regional formations will actually lead to the loss of the managerial aspect inherent in their functioning, thus discrediting the federal districts themselves as large inter-subject administrative complexes, within which the implementation of federal competence is ensured.

<80>See: Yu.M. Luzhkov. Path to an effective state: a plan for the transformation of the system of state power and administration in the Russian Federation. M., 2002. S. 37; Rodoman B.B. Prospects for the evolution of federal districts / Russian regions and the center: interaction in the economic space. M., 2000. S. 36 - 41; Chichkanov V.P. Separation of powers between the levels of state power of the Russian Federation // Bulletin of the Volga Academy of Public Administration. 2002. N 3. S. 26.

It should be noted that in early-mid-2001, the issue of creating another federal district within the borders of the Kaliningrad region was actively discussed. The main arguments for the proposal to create the eighth federal district were the difficult geopolitical position of the Kaliningrad region, its geographical isolation from the main territory of the Russian Federation, the presence of separatist and protest moods among residents, including among the political and economic elite, as well as the recommendations of the European Union countries to change the status region. However, in July 2001, the final decision was made not to create an independent federal district in this subject of Russia<81>. I think this decision is quite logical and justified. The implementation of the powers of the head of state in a broad sense on the territory of the Kaliningrad region can be effectively ensured by the currently existing specialized deputy plenipotentiary representative of the President of the Russian Federation in the North-Western Federal District for the Kaliningrad region. In addition, the integration of the Kaliningrad region with other subjects of the Federation seems to be more effective within the boundaries of the Northwestern Federal District than as an independent federal district, because interregional ties within federal districts are somewhat stronger than between federal districts.

<81>See: Ermakov V.G. Some problematic aspects of the future federal structure of the Russian Federation // Legal policy and legal life. 2004. N 4. S. 121; Sobolev O.N. On the main directions of optimizing the activities of state authorities of the Russian Federation to ensure national security in the Kaliningrad region // State and Law. 2008. N 7. S. 79; Ugodnikov K., Chichkin A. Remains free, there will be no district // Rossiyskaya Gazeta. 2001. 27 July.

There are other plans to reform the federal districts in Russia as disproportionate in size to the regional norm of manageability, economic potential, not corresponding to the organization of the basic sectors of the economy, transport and social infrastructure, as well as regional identity.<82>. Theoretically, the area in which the creation and functioning of federal state bodies is potentially permissible may cover part of a subject of the Federation or parts of several subjects of Russia. However, the establishment of the territorial sphere of competence of plenipotentiaries of the President of the Russian Federation and other state bodies, including certain parts of the subjects of the Federation, will not allow them to effectively fulfill their tasks. The reason for this is obvious, since it is necessary to analyze the situation in the subject of the Federation as a whole, and to interact with the state authorities of a particular subject of Russia should be one state body representing this or that federal state body, and not several.

<82>See: Bagba A.I. Delimitation of powers and subjects of jurisdiction between the Russian Federation and its subjects in the conditions of the formation of federal districts: Dis. ... cand. legal Sciences. M., 2003. S. 155; Bartsits I.N. The Constitution of Russia of 1993: a condition or an obstacle to the modernization of the system of state power? // The Constitution as a symbol of the era / Ed. S.A. Avakyan. T. 1. S. 337 - 338; He is. Constitutional and legal support of public administration reform // Constitutional and municipal law. 2007. N 24. S. 5; He is. Public Administration Reform in Russia: Legal Aspect. M., 2008. S. 480 - 481; Krasnykh O.V. Institute of plenipotentiaries of the President of the Russian Federation in the context of the development of federal relations: Dis. ... cand. legal Sciences. M., 2001. S. 127, 134; Matyushkin G.O. Institutionalization of federal districts in modern Russia (general legal analysis): Abstract of the thesis. dis. ... cand. legal Sciences. Nizhny Novgorod, 2004, p. 12; Saurin A.A. Institute of the Plenipotentiary Representative of the President of the Russian Federation in the Federal District (based on the experience of the Southern Federal District): Dis. ... cand. legal Sciences. Krasnodar, 2004. S. 7, 70 - 71, 151; Turovsky R. Federal districts: political and geographical approach in theory and practice // Federalism. 2003. N 1. S. 242 - 245.

The establishment of nine federal districts within the borders of Russia is seen as promising, which will allow, without significantly violating the interregional ties that have developed within the federal districts, to increase the efficiency of the functioning of state bodies at the level of the federal district, to raise the degree of their interaction with other public authorities to a higher level, as well as to maximally align the federal districts with each other in the socio-economic sense, to significantly strengthen the managerial aspect in their placement. This requires the following administrative-territorial transformations.

First, to form on the territory of today's Siberian Federal District two independent federal districts - West Siberian and East Siberian with centers in the cities of Novosibirsk and Irkutsk, respectively. The following subjects of the Federation may presumably be included in the West Siberian Federal District: Republics of Altai, Tyva, Khakassia, Altai Territory, Kemerovo, Novosibirsk, Omsk, Tomsk, Tyumen regions, Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug - Yugra, Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug. The Republic of Buryatia, Krasnoyarsk, Trans-Baikal Territories, Irkutsk Region should become part of the East Siberian Federal District.

Recall that a similar division of the territory of Siberia into the West Siberian Governor-General and the Governor-General of Eastern Siberia positively established itself even in pre-revolutionary Russia. Today, in particular, this will ensure the constant control of the federal state bodies over the use of hydrocarbon raw materials - the national wealth of Russia, the extraction of which today takes place mainly in Western Siberia, and will also allow the federal government to strengthen support for heavy engineering enterprises and enterprises that extract and process rare earth metals, located on the territory of Eastern Siberia.

Secondly, to create on the territory of today's Far Eastern Federal District also two independent federal districts - South-Eastern and North-Eastern with centers in the cities of Khabarovsk and Magadan, respectively. In this case, Primorsky, Khabarovsk Territories, Amur, Sakhalin Regions, and the Jewish Autonomous Region will be located on the territory of the South-Eastern Federal District. The Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), the Magadan Region, the Kamchatka Territory, and the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug will form the North-Eastern Federal District.

The expediency of dividing Siberia and the Far East into four of these federal districts is seen in their vast territories and strategic importance for the Russian Federation with a relatively small population and the still catastrophically deepening demographic crisis<83>. The mere proximity of the vast, not fully settled territories of Siberia and the Far East with the most populated country in the world gives rise to certain tensions. The growing economic ties of these territories with the PRC, necessary and progressive in themselves, have side effect excessive build-up of the "Chinese presence". Today we can clearly see the "quiet" purposeful demographic expansion of the PRC in relation to the territories of the subjects of the Federation, which supposedly should become part of the East Siberian and Southeastern federal districts through their settlement by ethnic citizens of China. Mass illegal migration is also actively used. This allows China to create within the next 10 - 15 years in these Russian regions vast enclaves of compact Chinese population.

<83>See: Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of October 9, 2007 N 1351 "On approval of the Concept of the demographic policy of the Russian Federation for the period until 2025" // SZ RF. 2007. N 42. Art. 5009; The concept of the demographic development of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2015. Approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of September 24, 2001 N 1270-r // СЗ RF. 2001. N 40. Art. 3873; Demographic Yearbook of Russia. M., 2005; Balashova T.N. Migration and demography in the system of national interests of Russia // Law and Law. 2008. N 5. S. 10 - 11; Beloborodov I.I. Legal aspects of modern family and demographic policy in the Russian Federation // Power. 2008. N 6. S. 22; Gurvich V. Declining Siberia // Political magazine. 2006. N 45/46. pp. 34 - 35; Elizarov V. The demographic situation in Russia: trends and consequences // Federalism. 2002. N 1. S. 151 - 182; Ershov Yu.S., Ibragimov N.M., Melnikova L.V. Siberian Federal District: current state and development prospects // Region: Economics and Sociology. 2005. N 4. S. 29, 43; Zhilinsky E.V. Socio-economic aspects of Russia's demographic policy // Power. 2008. N 6. S. 3 - 4; Iontsev V. Features of the demographic situation in Russia and its individual regions // Federalism. 2004. N 4. S. 113 - 135; Nesterov L., Kolchugina A. Demographic problems of Russia // Federalism. 2008. N 2. S. 219 - 226; Chudaeva O., Soboleva S. Siberia: trends and prospects of demographic development // Political class. 2005. N 9. S. 55 - 65.

unreasonable public policy in the field of market reforms and semi-criminal privatization in Russia, the actual isolation of the territories of Siberia and the Far East remote from the center, their geographical proximity to the PRC, China's huge economic and financial resources provide it with the opportunity to achieve real control over the key industries of the Russian regions under consideration in a short time, primarily working for military production, and completely subordinate both to Chinese economic system, as well as politics. At the same time, the threat to Russia from China is based not only on economic and demographic, but also on ideological foundations, since the Chinese civilization is aimed by its ideology at the formation of the “Celestial Empire” as the main world center, which should become dominant in the first place in Eurasia, which proposes to include in the zone of influence (the first stage) and within the borders of the PRC (the second stage) the territories of the nearest countries, including Russia. This situation is aggravated by separatist sentiments in the Siberian and especially the Far Eastern regions due to the rupture of ties with the rest of the country and the inattention of the federal government to the problems of these regions until recently.<84>. When further development such negative trends, there is a high probability of either a military clash between the Russian Federation and the PRC, or the loss of state sovereignty by Russia over the territory of Eastern Siberia and the Far East, as well as the unauthorized occupation by Japan of the disputed territories of the southern ridge Kuril Islands.

<84>See: Ishaev V. The Russian Far East should become a territory of common sense // Federalism. 2000. N 4. S. 5 - 16; Chiesa D. Farewell, Russia. M., 1997. S. 256 - 257; Hill F., Goddy C. Siberian Curse: How Communist Planners Left Russia Out in the Cold. Brookings Institution Press. Washington, 2003. P. 5 - 6; Barsamov V.A. Concepts and strategies for the development of Siberia and national threats // State power and local self-government. 2006. N 5. S. 4 - 5; Kalashnikov M., Ranov V. Tired Russia // Power. 2005. N 4. S. 13; Leksin V., Skvortsov V., Shvetsov A. The Russian Far East and its "regional capitals": the search for development strategies // Russian Economic Journal. 2007. N 9 - 10. S. 16 - 48; Khabibulin A.G., Chernobel G.T. The interests of the state and its security and protective function // Journal of Russian law. 2008. N 5. S. 21; Khodatenko E., Maruev A. National interests of the Russian Federation in the Asian geopolitical direction // Public Service. 2007. N 3. S. 20; Khachaturyan B. Federative and separatist tendencies in the East of Russia // Federalism. 2008. N 2. S. 165 - 174.

At present, the territory of Eastern Siberia and the Far East is the future of the country in terms of resource support for the economy. The Asia-Pacific region today is one of the centers of world economic development, the concentration of interests of various countries, and often geographically distant from it. Russia, which has access to this region, as well as colossal natural resources in this zone, should participate more actively in economic cooperation, the international division of labor and scientific and technical cooperation. In order to create here a pivotal region for cooperation with neighboring states, it is necessary to concentrate state resources on the development of transport, telecommunications and energy infrastructures, including the creation of transcontinental corridors<85>. This requires increased attention to the Far East from both the head of state and the federal executive authorities.

<85>See: Address of the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin Federal Assembly RF // Journal of Russian Law. 2005. N 5. S. 10.

The practical implementation of the proposed will make it possible and significantly facilitate the solution of the problem of "northern delivery" of food and fuels and lubricants to the territories of subjects of the Federation dependent on it, located in the north-east of the country, from other regions of Russia. There are many issues in the field of "northern delivery", they are rapidly increasing and aggravating from year to year<86>. In order to level them, the former governor of the Magadan Region, V. Tsvetkov, even put forward the idea of creating an Association of Regions of the North-East of Russia, uniting the remote northern regions of the Far East<87>. Recently, the problems in this area have been recognized by the federal authorities. This, in particular, is indirectly evidenced by the decision of the Head of State to dismiss the highest official of the Koryak Autonomous Okrug V.A. Loginov from office in connection with the disruption in the delivery of fuel to the settlements of the Penzhinsky and Olyutorsky districts of the Koryak Autonomous Okrug, which resulted in the defrosting of heating systems in the settlements of these areas, which led to massive violations of the rights and freedoms of citizens living in them; in connection with the loss of confidence of the President of Russia for the improper performance of his duties<88>.

<86>See: Boger I.B. Northern delivery of goods to the regions of the North-East of Russia: improvement of the organizational and economic mechanism // Region: Economics and Sociology. 2003. N 3. S. 105 - 121; Gasnikova A. Problems of energy security of the northern regions of the Russian Federation // Federalism. 2007. N 3. S. 33 - 44; Kandalov P.M. Constitutional and legal foundations for the formation and development of the institution of the plenipotentiary representative of the President of the Russian Federation in the federal district: Dis. ... cand. legal Sciences. Chelyabinsk, 2004, pp. 69 - 70; Shpak A. Modern format and possible prospects of "northern delivery" // Federalism. 2006. N 3. S. 173 - 184.
<87>See: Turovsky R. Federal districts: political and geographical approach in theory and practice // Federalism. 2003. N 1. S. 242.
<88>See: Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of March 9, 2005 N 272 "On Loginov V.A." // SZ RF. 2005. N 11. Art. 934.

Additionally, it is necessary to optimize the internal organization of the federal districts, thereby resolving the issue of regional identity to a certain extent. We are talking about the need to move a number of subjects of the Federation from one federal district to another, which should primarily affect the Volga and Ural federal districts. Thus, the Republic of Udmurtia, the Perm Territory, the Orenburg Region and, possibly, the Republic of Bashkortostan should be part of the Urals Federal District and, consequently, withdraw from the Volga Federal District. Whereas the Tyumen Region, Khanty-Mansiysk and Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrugs should leave the Urals Federal District and enter the West Siberian Federal District that is being created. At the same time, taking into account the unfavorable political and socio-economic situation that has developed to date on the southern borders of Russia, the Volgograd and Astrakhan regions should still form the territory of the Southern Federal District. In the future, if this situation changes, the inclusion of these subjects of the Federation into the Volga Federal District is not ruled out.

In the legal literature, the concept of "federal" has a slightly different content than the existing federal districts. It seems that the meaning of the functioning of the federal districts, the goals of the administrative reform being carried out in the country, to a greater extent will reflect the name "administrative and managerial districts." It is also important to legally define the state affiliation of the districts as administrative and managerial districts of the Russian Federation. In the future, the principles of formation, the structure and boundaries of the districts should be reflected in a special regulatory legal act - the Federal Law "On the administrative and managerial districts of the Russian Federation"<89>.

<89>See: Cherkasov K.V. Federal districts as a territorial sphere of activity of plenipotentiaries of the President of the Russian Federation: state and prospects for the development of the system // Constitutional and municipal law. 2007. N 3. S. 5 - 8.

Conclusion

The problems of effective organization of territorial administration, territorial structures of central government, optimization of centralization and decentralization of power functions, ensuring a balance between national interests and local independence have remained relevant throughout the history of the Russian state - from the time of its formation to the present. The search for ways to resolve them was dictated by different needs and tasks of state building at various stages and was difficult due to the lack of a formed civil society in the country, the huge territorial size of Russia with underdeveloped communications, the constant lack of financial resources and highly qualified personnel.

The need to maintain the state unity of modern Russia necessitates not only the enlargement of the subjects of the Federation, but also the formation of larger management units than the subjects of the Federation. The absence before the creation of the federal districts of an intermediate link in the system of federal territorial administration significantly hampered the management of the country, the interaction of state bodies of various levels of power, reduced the efficiency and capabilities of the central government in exercising control over regional processes. The establishment of federal districts, the reorganization of the institution of plenipotentiaries of the President of the Russian Federation in federal districts, the formation of other state bodies at the level of the federal district has become a forced and necessary administrative measure to improve state territorial administration, an important tool for centralizing executive power and increasing the effectiveness of the functioning of territorial bodies.

The creation and functioning of state bodies at the level of the federal district should be considered in the context of the implementation of administrative reform, the exercise of the powers of federal state bodies, the implementation of cardinal measures to strengthen the unity of the system of state, primarily executive, power in the country, as well as leveling the problematic issues of Russian federalism. Today we can definitely talk about the accomplished reforming of a significant part of the executive power structures according to the district principle, the strengthening of the vertical of this power, the deepening of their interaction and ties with the Government and the President of the Russian Federation. The strategic goal of the activities of state bodies at the level of the federal district is seen in strengthening the Russian statehood at the appropriate level, ensuring the state integrity and unity of the Russian Federation in all areas identified in the legal literature and in all their manifestations, properties<90>.

<90>See, for example: Levakin I.V. Russian Federation: problems of state unity. M., 2002. S. 285; Likholetova S.V. The federal structure of Russia: the interaction of public authorities of the Russian Federation and its subjects: Dis. ... cand. legal Sciences. Chelyabinsk, 2004, pp. 13 - 31; Radchenko V.I. Constitutional foundations of the state integrity of the Russian Federation: Dis. ... doc. legal Sciences. M., 2003. S. 320 - 321; Rakhmetov M.A. State integrity of the Russian Federation as an object of constitutional protection: Dis. ... cand. legal Sciences. M., 2005. S. 15; Ebzeev B.S., Krasnoryadtsev S.A., Levakin I.V., Radchenko V.I. State unity and integrity of the Russian Federation (constitutional and legal problems) / Ed. ed. B.S. Ebzeev. M.: Economics, 2005. S. 374.

The main result of the work of state bodies at the level of the federal district was the cessation of fragmentation processes and the formation of a single Russian legal, political and economic space; restoration of the authority of the federal government; establishing interaction between public authorities of different levels among themselves, as well as with civil society institutions; elimination of the managerial gap between the central federal executive bodies and their territorial subdivisions; strengthening the responsibility of public authorities for the fulfillment of the tasks assigned to them by the President of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Russian Federation; ensuring the systematic implementation of the powers of federal state bodies in the field; improving the efficiency of state territorial development management.

The resulting vector of the formation of federal districts is associated with taking into account a complex of factors that contribute to strengthening the vertical of executive power, strengthening the influence of the central government on political and economic processes in the regions, which allows the district state bodies, relying on established institutions, to ensure the implementation of decisions of the central federal state bodies on the ground, and in some cases even implement them independently. Having eliminated the managerial gap between the central federal state bodies and their territorial subdivisions in the regions by the fact of their existence, the federal districts contribute to the revival of the norm of state control, which was previously violated. They significantly changed the system of state territorial administration, made it possible to form the missing middle management link, a kind of additional level of exercising the powers of federal state bodies. At the same time, federal districts today need their own, "internal" optimization.

The creation of inter-regional administration and the establishment of links between a new level of federal power and the central one, on the one hand, and the streamlining of territorial administration, the reduction of administrative influences to a single system, on the other, these two tasks were carried out in the establishment of federal districts. At the same time, they are not just administrative, but cultural, historical and geographical categories, determined by historical and economic prerequisites. The appearance of powerful territorial-economic complexes in the form of federal districts contributes to the progressive development, leveling of socio-economic differences, economic and political integration of the subjects of the Federation, creates a system of large-scale, multi- and multi-resource segments of a single economic and legal space. If we consider each of them as a kind of national economic complex with its own historical, natural and economic specifics and production potential, then significant reserves are revealed for restructuring and raising the country's economy. The federal districts did not become territorial units and did not fundamentally change the nature of Russian federalism.

As a result, the federal districts ensure the deepening and development of both vertical and horizontal federal ties, allow solving strategic issues of territorial development at a level adequate to the scale and complexity of the districts, and in the context of territorial administration, ensure a balance between national interests and local autonomy. From a managerial point of view, the ultimate goal of the existence of federal districts is seen in the organization of effective administration, optimization and final restructuring of most of the territorial structures of federal bodies of state, primarily executive, power on a supra-subject, inter-regional principle, which is necessary both to limit the influence of local authorities on federal structures, and and increase the effectiveness of the territorial bodies of federal state bodies, reduce duplication and improve the coordination of their activities.

Administrative-territorial division of Russia. Federal Districts

The administrative-territorial division of the Russian Federation is the most important component of the territorial organization of the country, on the basis of which the system of state authorities, local governments, as well as the system of public associations is built. The existing administrative-territorial structure of Russia is due to the vastness of the territory of our country, the diversity of economic, geographical, demographic, natural and national conditions of each subject of the federation.
The administrative-territorial structure of Russia, which has a federal form of government, is a state-legal mechanism that ensures the economic, political, ideological and organizational activities of the state and its subjects.

The administrative-territorial structure of Russia currently differs in types and levels:

federal districts
Subjects of the Russian Federation
economic regions

The federal districts of the Russian Federation were created in accordance with the Decree of the President of Russia V.V. Putin No. 849 dated May 13, 2000 "On the Plenipotentiary Representative of the President of the Russian Federation in the Federal District". At the time of their establishment in 2000, 7 federal districts were created

Presidential Decree D. A. Medvedev dated January 19, 2010 separated the North Caucasian Federal District from the Southern Federal District and increased the number of federal districts to eight.

By the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation V. V. Putin dated March 21, 2014, the Crimean Federal District was created and incorporated into the Russian Federation / It became the ninth federal district of Russia.

The Federal District of Russia is not a federal subject or any constitutional part of the administrative-territorial division of the Russian Federation. The plenipotentiary representative of the President of the Russian Federation in the federal district does not have any constitutional powers - he is the representative of the President and an employee of the Presidential Administration.

County name	Administrative center	Number of subjects of the Russian Federation	Area (km 2)	Population (01/01/2013)
Central Federal District	Moscow		652,8	38 678 913
Southern Federal District	Rostov-on-Don		416,84	13 910179
Northwestern Federal District	St. Petersburg		1 677,9	13 717 773
Far Eastern Federal District	Khabarovsk		6 215,9	6 251 496
Siberian Federal District	Novosibirsk		5 114,8	19 278 201
Ural federal district	Yekaterinburg		1 788,9
Volga Federal District	Nizhny Novgorod		1 038	29 772 235
North Caucasian Federal District	Pyatigorsk		172,36	9 540 758
Crimean Federal District	Simferopol		27,16	2 342 000

2.Principles and methods of economic zoning of the Russian Federation

economic region- this is an integral territorial part of the national economy of the country with its own specialization and a special structure of production and relations. In relation to a regulated economy, this definition is supplemented by an indication of such fundamental differences as the purposefulness of economic development (based on programs and plans that correct market self-regulation), its proportionality, complexity and diversification, active and rational participation in the social territorial division of labor. The latter is the basis for the formation of all economic regions, which contributes to the mass and efficient production of various goods and the expansion of the market. Basis of economic zoning- the territorial division of labor in a certain type of marketable product, which determines the economic profile of the territory objectively.

Economic zoning- the allocation of a territory with a certain formed production, based either on its own resources or on the labor skills of the population, taking into account the historically established economic structure.

Economic zoning- the division of the country's territory into economic regions - serves as an important tool for regulating territorial development, used in regional planning and management, in particular, in the development of statistical reports and socio-economic forecasts, in financial and budgetary calculations, as well as in substantiating the administrative-territorial structure and etc.

Depending on the goals of economic zoning, the tasks it solves, two types of zoning are distinguished - integral (general economic) and sectoral (industrial, agricultural, etc.) zoning. Further, we will talk about integral economic zoning - the allocation of general economic regions of different levels (upper, middle, lower), as well as economic zones.

Our country has a rich scientific heritage and practical experience in economic zoning. The territorial and economic division of Russia for cognitive purposes was carried out long before the revolution. Constructive work in this area began in the early Soviet years (the GOELRO plan and the state planning zoning of the 1920s). The grid of economic regions was improved until the 1980s.

It should be borne in mind that market relations do not introduce fundamental changes in the formation of the material basis of territorial complexes, the territorial division of social labor, but only modify it. Therefore, the region-forming factors and principles of economic regionalization known in the planned economy retain their significance.

The modern period is distinguished by a noticeable change in the nature of the former area-forming factors and the emergence of new ones. The territorial problems of the post-industrial economy are acute for areas with harsh natural conditions, the development of which has become widespread. However, for zoning, it is important not only to take into account geographical boundaries effective use new technology, etc. The influence of the technical and organizational factor on district formation and zoning manifests itself everywhere through the territorial forms of the progressive organization of social production, its concentration, specialization, complexity, etc. The traditional principles of economic zoning are refined at each stage, taking into account the qualitative features of the development of productive forces and conditions of territorial regulation.

An important principle of zoning is to ensure a high level of territorial concentration of production and its resources. For example, large economic regions must have powerful economic complexes and significant production resources.

Related to this is the observance of the scientifically substantiated scale of zoning, which serves as a guarantee against random, arbitrary decisions and makes it possible to achieve relative equality in regions of the same rank of economic indicators. Trends in territorial concentration under the influence of scientific and technological progress and long-term stable market demand have a very significant impact on the formation of economic regions.

The growth of labor productivity and unit capacity of machinery and equipment, together with an increase in the number of units at enterprises and the expansion of the number of industries and industries in the region, leads to the fact that relatively limited territories in terms of production resources become equivalent to vast regions and even the entire country in the past. For example, industrial output in Western Siberia by the 1980s reached the volume of production in the USSR in 1940.

Economic zoning is traditionally based on territorial differences in the specialization of the economy. The composition and boundaries of an economic region should be determined in such a way that it creates the best conditions for expedient industrial specialization and the formation of commodity markets. Considering ferrous and non-ferrous metallurgy as the basis of the economic profile of the Urals, when establishing its boundaries, all metallurgical centers and all ore resources in this territory were united in one area. The same is true for other specialized branches of the Ural economy. This makes it possible to achieve high productivity of social labor on the basis of an expedient interregional division of labor and commodity exchange. Moreover, development prospects are taken into account.

The decisive factor in the differentiation of economic indicators across the territory is the regional differences in the costs of production, the economics of the production itself in different regions, which must be identified during zoning. At the same time, an important condition for regional specialization in certain types of goods is favorable economic assessments of multi-purpose resources - labor, fuel and energy, land, and water. Thus, the unity of Eastern Siberia as an economic region is called into question by the significant high cost of fuel and electricity in Transbaikalia in comparison with Cisbaikalia.

Acquires new features and such a traditional area-forming factor as the territorial complexity of the economy, in which the specialization of the area is combined with its diversified development. Since the 1920s, like regional specialization, it has become an unshakable principle of economic zoning in our country. A territorial economic complex of a certain scale and profile is the core of an economic region. This is especially pronounced in the large economic region of the macro-region.

In the pre-war period, when developing territorial plans, much attention was paid to providing economic regions with their own fuel, electricity, chemical fertilizers, cement, consumer goods, etc. Therefore, vast territories were singled out as such self-sufficient regions. For example, the Central region also included the territories of the present Volga-Vyatka and Central Chernozem. However, now, thanks to technological progress, many effective economic ties can cover even wider, vast areas, often extending to the whole country; they should be considered inter-district. The dominant indicators of regional complexity are the correspondence of the region's economy to its natural and economic conditions, the rational combination of specialized industries and industries with their territorial concentration, and the relative similarity of the sectoral structure of the territories included in the region.

Of course, the inner parts of regional complexes should be distinguished not only by common specialization, but also by close and stable production (economic and technological) ties. However, this cannot contradict the effective inter-regional division of labor and the formation of zonal markets. Technological progress, concentration and specialization of production lead to the fact that intra-regional cooperation and combination of production (often only for intermediate products) acquire an ever greater importance among the conditions for the integrated development of the economy. The role of powerful production and transport hubs is increasing, linking the most important industries, around which the economic complexes of the regions are being formed. For example, in the Urals they are primarily Yekaterinburg, Perm and Chelyabinsk.

At the same time, not only the largest industrial hubs and urban agglomerations (Moscow, St. Petersburg, Nizhny Novgorod, etc.) can act as the cores of the economic regions of the European part of the country, but also not so powerful, but rather large industrial centers and cities. (Arkhangelsk, Voronezh, Krasnodar, etc.). The specific boundaries of an economic region are often closely related to the configuration of the transport network that connects the core regions with the periphery. The delimitation of transport (freight and passenger) flows between neighboring large economic centers determines the boundaries of different regions.

An indispensable requirement of regional complexity was to take into account the social and economic factors of the territorial characteristics of the reproduction of labor resources, the possibilities for improving the living standards of the population, as well as protecting nature and improving the use of natural resources. Through economic zoning, it is possible to improve the conditions for convergence and alignment of the levels of socio-economic development of various regions. After all, in some areas, the internal acute social specificity is obscured by a generally favorable picture. Thus, the indices of per capita income in individual regions of the same economic region differ quite significantly.

Only if the principles of economic specialization and the complexity of the district are observed, its development can be successfully regulated using program, balance, optimization and other methods, it can be formed in an interconnected, harmonious way, successfully solve district-complex problems and achieve high socio-economic performance.

District complexity, understood as a special type of territorial-production integration, is supplemented by mobile diversification of regional economies, the adaptation of their structure to the market situation of commodity demand and supply.

Of great scientific and practical importance in zoning is the question of differentiation of territorial formations into economic and non-economic, and economic into regions and zones. Economic regions are based on regional economic complexes. But too much fragmentation or, conversely, enlargement of economic regions leads to the erosion of these complexes, in fact, their replacement by other territorial formations: below - the primary society (small territories of a social nature), above - zonal formations (of an economic or even non-economic nature). They already lack essential features of an economic region, primarily clearly defined economic specialization and complexity.

Over the past decades, a qualitative approach to the justification of economic zoning, which was previously the only one, began to be supplemented by a quantitative one. True, cartographic, statistical, and partly balance methods were also used in the past, but more accurate methods of quantitative analysis began to be introduced only relatively recently.

The grouping of primary regions (for example, regions, etc.) into larger ones according to some essential features is relatively easy to carry out on the basis of statistical and calculated (for the future) indicators of regional analysis. To identify common features specialization, as well as the complexity of regional units, well-known indicators can be used: the localization index and the general index of specialization, the coefficient of similarity of the sectoral structure, the index of the average sectoral efficiency of industrial production of regional districts, etc. The economic potential of the selected regions (population, industrial production, etc.) is also taken into account. etc.), estimates for resources of a multi-purpose nature, inter-regional exchange of goods, etc. When justifying economic regions, various options for their composition should be considered.

Especially fruitful is the use of the exact economic-mathematical method in economic zoning. This problem practically usually concerned either the study of certain aspects of the general theory, or only the zoning of some limited territories. In SOPS under the State Planning Committee of the USSR, a fundamental economic and mathematical model of the entire territorial and economic division of the country was first developed (70s).

The model is based on the identification of regional differentiation of social labor costs. For this, a system of estimates of national economic (reduced) costs was calculated in the context of primary regions (oblasts, etc.) for 4 intersectoral (multi-purpose) resources (labor, land, water, fuel and energy) and for the factor of transport and geographical location, reflecting general terms and Conditions territorial specialization. The grouping of primary regions into large ones was carried out according to the degree of commonality of the values of all five factors of the population, the smallest deviation of their values from the average value (by the minimum coefficient of variation). Variants of the grid of districts were calculated on a computer.

Basic principles of zoning:

· Economic, that is, a calculation is made of branches of specialization, production, material, technological ties between industries, economic (interregional) ties are determined.

· National, national interests, way of life.

· Administrative, determines the integrity of the occurrence of the administrative unit of the territory in the economic region.

The principles were formulated in the 1920s during the first zoning.

The basis of the economic region is the regional economic complex of the WPK, which consists of three groups: the branch of specialization, auxiliary branches of a production nature serving the first group, additional branches of a social nature serving the population.

The main thing in the regional economic complex is the close interconnection of all types of industries in various areas, which makes it possible to provide the economy of the territory with the necessary types of goods and services of its own production. Thus, there is a reduction in social costs, their savings in the production of the main types of marketable products. Here, a large export of marketable products outside the region and a small import are achieved. As a result, the trade balance of the territory becomes positive (more than 1).

The definition of industries of specialization is based on the index method.