Codification problems of necessary defense affecting its implementation
( Pp. 155-163)

Objectives. The goal of scholarly research is to develop proposals for amendments in criminal law General and Special part of Criminal code of the Russian Federation governing self-defense. The scientific article identifies legislative gaps and contradictions that hinder the effective implementation of the necessary defense and require prompt solutions. Methods. The article analyzes such concepts as “self-defense”, “public assault”, “excess of limits of necessary defense”, “violation of the conditions of lawfulness of necessary defense”, “surprise assault”, “rights defending or other persons, interests of the state”. The use of logical and comparative legal methods allowed us to develop proposals for making changes to the criminal law norms that establish the necessary defense. Conclusions. The article shows the conflicts and gaps legislative recognition of self-defense and, in this regard, the complexity of its implementation in the articles of the Special part of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation and practical application. Changes are proposed to the criminal law norms regulating the necessary defense, both in the General and in the Special part of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation. Sense. The content of the scientific article can be used by the teaching staff of higher educational institutions when teaching the course “Criminal law”. The results of the work can be useful to persons who carry out legislative activities in the field of criminal law. The leitmotif of the article can be used in the preparation of dissertation research.

Petrushenkov A.N., (2020), CODIFICATION PROBLEMS OF NECESSARY DEFENSE AFFECTING ITS IMPLEMENTATION. Sociopolitical Sciences, 3 => 155-163.

Vorob eva N.A. Problemy primeneniya zakonodatel stva o neobkhodimoy oborone // Sovremennoe pravo. 2018. № 5. S. 88-91.
Volkov K.A. Neobkhodimaya oborona v deyatel nosti politsii: voprosy teorii i sudebnoy praktiki // Rossiyskiy sud ya. 2013. № 4. S. 11-15.
TSereteli T.V., Makashvili V.G. Sostav prestupleniya kak osnovanie ugolovnoy otvetstvennosti // Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo. 1954. № 5. S. 67-77.
Merkur ev V.V. Sostav neobkhodimoy oborony. SPb.: YUridicheskiy tsentr Press, 2004. 216 c.
Kolosovskiy V.V. Neobkhodimaya oborona: problemy ugolovno-pravovoy kvalifikatsii // Pravo i politika. 2008. № 3. S. 635-643.
Garbatovich D.A. Neobkhodimaya oborona ot neprestupnykh poboev // Rossiyskiy sud ya. 2017. № 6. S. 31-33.
Piontkovskiy A.A. Uchenie o prestuplenii po sovetskomu ugolovnomu pravu. M.: YUrid. lit-ra, 1961. 666 c.
Kaburneev E.V. O nekotorykh problemakh kvalifikatsii faktov prichineniya smerti pri prevyshenii predelov neobkhodimoy oborony // Rossiyskiy sledovatel . 2007. № 1. S. 14-16.
Reshenie Prezidiuma Verkhovnogo Suda RF v otnoshenii Volkova (p. a ch. 2 st. 105 UK RF) // Byulleten Verkhovnogo Suda RF. 2004. № 4.
Vinokurov V., SHelestyukov V. Narushenie neprikosnovennosti zhilishcha kak osnovanie prichineniya vreda v sostoyanii neobkhodimoy oborony // Ugolovnoe pravo. 2006. № 6. S. 15-19.
Efimovich A.A. K voprosu kvalifikatsii obshchestvenno opasnogo deyaniya, yavlyayushchegosya osnovaniem neobkhodimoy oborony // Rossiyskiy sledovatel . 2010. № 8. S. 18-19.
Klyuev A.A. Nasilie, opasnoe dlya zhizni, ili ugroza primeneniya takogo nasiliya kak raznovidnost obshchestvenno opasnogo posyagatel stva pri neobkhodimoy oborone // Rossiyskiy sud ya. 2015. № 7. S. 28-31.
Postanovlenie Plenuma Verkhovnogo Suda RF ot 27.09.2012 № 19 O primenenii sudami zakonodatel stva o neobkhodimoy oborone i prichinenii vreda pri zaderzhanii litsa, sovershivshego prestuplenie // Rossiyskaya gazeta. 03.10.2012. № 227.
Opredelenie Sudebnoy kollegii po ugolovnym delam Verkhovnogo Suda Respubliki Tatarstan ot 17.05.2013 po delu № 22-3559/2013. http://sudrf.kodeks.ru/rospravo/ document/472560090 (data obrashcheniya: 26.11.2018).
Apellyatsionnyy prigovor Sudebnoy kollegii po ugolovnym delam Verkhovnogo Suda Respubliki Tatarstan ot 22.04.2014 po delu № 22-2424/2014. http:// sudact.ru/regular/doc/Jdmn6hV7HIdw/ (data obrashcheniya: 26.11.2018).
Prigovor Biyskogo gorodskogo suda Altayskogo kraya ot 16.04.2014 po delu № 1-183/2014. http:// sudact.ru/regular/doc/f2f0vvKYnZgQ/ (data obrashcheniya: 26.11.2018).
Prigovor Promyshlennogo rayonnogo suda g. Kurska ot 03.02.2014 po delu № 1-50/2014. http://sudact.ru/regular/ doc/7sLWK3wOlpVv/ (data obrashcheniya: 26.11.2018).
Zvecharovskiy I.E., Parkhomenko S.V. Ugolovno-pravovye garantii realizatsii prava na neobkhodimuyu oboronu. Irkutsk: IGU, 1997. 118 c.
YUsupov R.M. Neobkhodimaya oborona v zakonodatel stve i sudebnoy praktike: avtoref. dis. kand. yurid. nauk. M.: MGYUA, 1999. 24 c.
Postanovlenie Plenuma Verkhovnogo Suda RF ot 04.12.2014 № 16 O sudebnoy praktike po delam o prestupleniyakh protiv polovoy neprikosnovennosti i polovoy svobody lichnosti // Rossiyskaya gazeta. 12.12.2014. № 284.
Postanovlenie Plenuma Verkhovnogo Suda RF ot 27.12.2002 № 29 O sudebnoy praktike po delam o krazhe, grabezhe i razboe // Rossiyskaya gazeta. 18.01.2003. № 9.
Garbatovich D. Neobkhodimaya oborona pri zashchite prava sobstvennosti // Ugolovnoe pravo. 2007. № 2. S. 37-39.
Dmitrenko A.P. Predely pravomernosti prava na neobkhodimuyu oboronu. Stavropol : Stavropol servisshkola, 2000. 144 c.
Pobegaylo E. O predelakh neobkhodimoy oborony // Ugolovnoe pravo. 2008. № 2. S. 69-74.

necessary defense, socially dangerous encroachment, exceeding the limits of necessary defense, violation of the conditions of legality of necessary defense, surprise encroachment, the rights of an individual, the interests of society, the interests of the state.