Federalism and Local Politics in Russia

4 Functional model of LSGLocal self-government in Russia 233Dating back to the RSFSR Law of 1991, Russia’s LSG system has beencharacterized by the ‘dual function model’ according to which, besides beingresponsible for ‘questions of local importance’ in their own right, the localauthorities can be put in charge of carrying out tasks ‘delegated’ to them bythe State. In adopting the ‘dual function’ model of LSG, Russia’s legislationfell in line with (and probably consciously drew on) a strand of (West)European local government tradition, which has been part and parcel of theGerman-Austrian system of local government since the early nineteenthcentury, and was also a characteristic of local government in Central EasternEurope until 1945. 354.1 (Genuine) local government tasksIn line with the concepts of LSG and ‘question of local importance’, whichwere first introduced by the 1990 Law, the 1991 Law took up the concept ofLSG as a self-standing legal body at the local level, which marked a rupturefrom the Soviet concept of the ‘unity of the State’. At the same time, byassigning these tasks exclusively to LSG, it broke with the ‘Russian doll’(‘Matryoshka’) principle that allowed the higher government levels to intervenein and take over any (local) matters. 36In accordance with 1995 Federal Law, the 2003 Federal Law puts forwarda differentiated concept and understanding of ‘questions of local importance’.On the one hand, it puts forward a general definition of ‘questions oflocal importance’ (Article 2.1) which largely corresponds with what isunderstood in (West) European (particularly Continental European) countriesas the (traditional) ‘general competence clause’. 37 On the other hand, itspells out lists of specific tasks assigned to the three types of LSG. Thisenumeration approach shows some resemblance with the British/Englandultra vires doctrine according to which the local authorities may only exercisethose powers that have been explicitly ascribed to them by Act ofParliament. 38 The mix of these two principles in the 2003 legislation (as wellas in the previous 1995 legislation) has given rise to legal controversies sincethe ‘enumeration’ approach has been criticized for making the assignment oftasks ‘inflexible’, and for obscuring the scope of ‘questions of local importance’as a self-standing source of task definition. 39 In fact, the repeatedamendments to the ‘list of competencies’ hints at the legislative uncertaintiesthey harbour.It should be noted, however, that the list of ‘competencies’ spelt out in the2003 Federal Law show a significant conceptual advance in that some differentiationis made particularly between the tasks ascribed, within the twotierstructure, to the lower-level LSG units (settlements), on the one hand,and to the upper LSG units (municipal districts), on the other (see articles 14and 15) – with the latter being assigned tasks that go beyond the borders