Instituto de Estudios Políticos y Derecho Público "Dr. Humberto J. La Roche"
de la Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas de la Universidad del Zulia
Maracaibo, Venezuela
Esta publicación cientíca en formato digital es continuidad de la revista impresa
ISSN-Versión Impresa 0798-1406 / ISSN-Versión on line 2542-3185Depósito legal pp
197402ZU34
ppi 201502ZU4645
Vol.40 N° 72
Enero
Junio
2022
ISSN 0798- 1406 ~ De pó si to le gal pp 198502ZU132
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas
La re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas, es una pu bli ca ción aus pi cia da por el Ins ti tu to
de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co “Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che” (IEPDP) de la Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas de la Uni ver si dad del Zu lia.
En tre sus ob je ti vos fi gu ran: con tri buir con el pro gre so cien tí fi co de las Cien cias
Hu ma nas y So cia les, a tra vés de la di vul ga ción de los re sul ta dos lo gra dos por sus in ves-
ti ga do res; es ti mu lar la in ves ti ga ción en es tas áreas del sa ber; y pro pi ciar la pre sen ta-
ción, dis cu sión y con fron ta ción de las ideas y avan ces cien tí fi cos con com pro mi so so cial.
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas apa re ce dos ve ces al año y pu bli ca tra ba jos ori gi na les con
avan ces o re sul ta dos de in ves ti ga ción en las áreas de Cien cia Po lí ti ca y De re cho Pú bli-
co, los cua les son so me ti dos a la con si de ra ción de ár bi tros ca li fi ca dos.
ESTA PU BLI CA CIÓN APA RE CE RE SE ÑA DA, EN TRE OTROS ÍN DI CES, EN
:
Re vicyhLUZ, In ter na tio nal Po li ti cal Scien ce Abs tracts, Re vis ta In ter ame ri ca na de
Bi blio gra fía, en el Cen tro La ti no ame ri ca no para el De sa rrol lo (CLAD), en Bi blio-
gra fía So cio Eco nó mi ca de Ve ne zue la de RE DIN SE, In ter na tio nal Bi blio graphy of
Po li ti cal Scien ce, Re vencyt, His pa nic Ame ri can Pe rio di cals In dex/HAPI), Ul ri ch’s
Pe rio di cals Di rec tory, EBS CO. Se en cuen tra acre di ta da al Re gis tro de Pu bli ca cio-
nes Cien tí fi cas y Tec no ló gi cas Ve ne zo la nas del FO NA CIT, La tin dex.
Di rec to ra
L
OIRALITH
M. C
HIRINOS
P
ORTILLO
Co mi té Edi tor
Eduviges Morales Villalobos
Fabiola Tavares Duarte
Ma ría Eu ge nia Soto Hernández
Nila Leal González
Carmen Pérez Baralt
Co mi té Ase sor
Pedro Bracho Grand
J. M. Del ga do Ocan do
José Ce rra da
Ri car do Com bel las
An gel Lom bar di
Die ter Nohlen
Al fre do Ra mos Ji mé nez
Go ran Ther born
Frie drich Welsch
Asis ten tes Ad mi nis tra ti vos
Joan López Urdaneta y Nil da Ma rín
Re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas. Av. Gua ji ra. Uni ver si dad del Zu lia. Nú cleo Hu ma nís ti co. Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas. Ins ti tu to de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co
“Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che”. Ma ra cai bo, Ve ne zue la. E- mail: cues tio nes po li ti cas@gmail.
com ~ loi chi ri nos por til lo@gmail.com. Te le fax: 58- 0261- 4127018.
Vol. 40, Nº 72 (2022), 823-841
IEPDP-Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas - LUZ
Recibido el 15/09/2021 Aceptado el 04/12/2021
Modern urban development policy:
normative regulation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.46398/cuestpol.4072.50
Victor Aleksandrovich Mayboroda *
Pavel Pavlovich Spirin **
Abstract
The article reveals the importance of the legal institution in
the urban planning structure in the Russian Federation, using
the methods of content analysis and deductive and inductive
approaches. In connection with the creation of a new public-legal
entity for Russia, the federal territory “Sirius”, a comparative
analysis was carried out, as a result of which it is evident that the
territories of the federal capital were identied as optimal in terms
of the success of development, the economic achievement of which
is due, among other things, to novel progress, generally based on
the acquisition by the public authorities of the federal territory of
special rights over parcels within federal territories. Considering that one
of the objectives of the creation of the federal territory “Sirius” is a complex
sustainable and innovative socioeconomic development of the territory and,
in addition, with the factor of lack of legal certainty, the authors conclude
that the need to use a new conceptual apparatus of elements of planning
structure in the regulation of urban planning activities of the territory is
justied. federal, which are dened and ascribed in the general regulatory
system.
Keywords: Sirius federal territory; elements of the planning structure;
sustainable development of the territory; normative
regulation; urban development.
* Northwestern Institute of Management (branch of RANEPA), Saint Petersburg, 199178, Russia. ORCID
ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3439-1244
** Research Institute of Advanced Urban Development (PG Research Institute), Saint Petersburg, Russia.
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3805-0137
824
Victor Aleksandrovich Mayboroda y Pavel Pavlovich Spirin
Modern urban development policy: normative regulation
Política de desarrollo urbano moderno:
regulación normativa
Resumen
El artículo revela la importancia de la institución legal en la la estructura
de planicación urbana en la Federación de Rusia, utilizando los métodos
de análisis de contenido y enfoques deductivos e inductivos. En relación
con la creación de una nueva entidad pública-legal para Rusia, el territorio
federal “Sirius”, se llevó a cabo un análisis comparativo, como resultado
de lo cual se evidencia que los territorios de la capital federal fueron
identicado como óptimos en términos del éxito del desarrollo, cuyo logro
económico se debe, entre otras cosas, al progreso novedoso, generalmente
basado en la adquisición por parte de las autoridades públicas del territorio
federal de derechos especiales sobre parcelas dentro de territorios federales.
Considerando que uno de los objetivos de la creación del territorio federal
«Sirius» es un complejo desarrollo socioeconómico sostenible e innovador
del territorio y, además, con el factor de falta de certeza jurídica, los
autores concluyen que se justica la necesidad de utilizar un nuevo aparato
conceptual de elementos de estructura de planicación en la regulación de
las actividades de planicación urbana del territorio federal, los cuales se
denen y adscriben en el sistema normativo general.
Palabras clave: territorio federal «Sirio»; elementos de la estructura
de planicación; desarrollo sostenible del territorio;
regulación normativa; desarrollo urbano.
Introduction
The appearance of a modern city is determined by its layout, the
formation of which is historically and economically determined by many
factors. Construction materials change over time. Planning decisions for
the placement of buildings, structures, and constructions also change. The
most important inuencing factors on the location in territorial planning
are the geographical terrain and the emerging market factors in commodity
turnover.
Typical methods of territory planning are well-known: rstly, radial-
concentric, secondly, linear, thirdly, grid-network, and, fourthly, radial
(fan) (Mityagin and Spirin, 2019).
All these methods of planning are used in one way or another in modern
urban planning. The combination of these methods is designed to form
a spatial organization in which the population is provided with sucient
transport, engineering, and social infrastructure facilities and has access to
places of employment.
825
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 72 (2022): 823-841
However, settlements, planning solutions of which did not have a
historical background and were formed completely from scratch are very
popular: Vasilievsky Island in St. Petersburg, Manhattan in New York, etc.
The popularity of such solutions is explained by the use of the Grid plan,
according to which the streets intersect perpendicular, and the blocks have a
square shape. Similarly, K. Wren’s urban planning solutions, implemented
after the Great Fire of London in 1666, were also popular, due to which
re insurance appeared, and the modern City (Zone One) has a planning
system based on lattice-network solutions.
Therewith, the normative and legal regulation of relations in urban
planning, including in the part concerning the possibility of using certain
planning decisions in the public interest, do not nd a proper degree of
regulation in Russian legislation, leaving the institutionalization of a
specic planning decision concerning a locality in the discretion of the
project organization preparing a draft of the relevant territorial planning
document.
Since in this case, this refers to the public interest, the institution of public
hearings (public discussions), designed to gain public consensus in making
certain planning decisions, is considered insucient. After all, concerning
other legal relations, but also aimed at forming a collective will, the tools
of general meetings are used in the Russian legal order as procedures for
forming a collective expression of will, rather than expressing an opinion
(Mayboroda, 2018). In this connection, the paper examines the problem of
legal uncertainty in the regulation of the used institute of territory planning
in urban planning activities in terms of the formalization of the elements of
the planning structure.
1. Methods
The object of the study is the public legal entity of the “Sirius” federal
territory (Russia).
The study uses a comparative analysis of the regulation of similar
relations in foreign legal systems. The semantic meaning of the concept of
“planning structure” is revealed through the use of content analysis. The
methods of deduction and induction are used to construct possible ways
to improve the regulation of the studied legal relations concerning the
goals of creating a federal territory in Russia, considering the possibility of
innovating the entire territorial development of the Imaret Lowland.
826
Victor Aleksandrovich Mayboroda y Pavel Pavlovich Spirin
Modern urban development policy: normative regulation
2. Results
2.1. Analysis of the element of the planning structure in
the system of normative regulation of the urban planning
legislation of Russia
Clause 35 of Article 1 of the Town Planning Code of the Russian
Federation (2004) denes an element of planning structure as a part of the
territory of the settlement, city district, or the inter-settlement territory of
the municipal district (quarter, the residential district, the area, and other
similar elements).
The corresponding authority is assigned to the Government of the
Russian Federation to authorize the executive authority to establish the
types of such elements.
The Government of the Russian Federation, for its part, by paragraph
5 of the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 1221
of November 19, 2014 “On approval of the rules for assigning, changing
and canceling addresses” (2014), authorized the Ministry of Finance of
the Russian Federation to approve the list of elements of the planning
structure, elements of the street and road network, elements of addressing
objects, types of buildings (structures), premises used as address details, as
well as the rules for abbreviating the name of address-forming elements.
The Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation implemented
this authority by adopting Order No. 171n dated November 5, 2015 “On
approval of the list of elements of the planning structure, elements of the
street and road network, elements of addressing objects, types of buildings
(structures), premises used as address details, and rules for abbreviated
naming of address-forming elements” (Order of The Ministry of Finance of
the Russian Federation, 2015).
The named order lists the elements of the planning structure: shaft;
zone (array); quarter; eld; microdistrict; embankment; Island; the park;
port; area; garden; square; territory; the territory where citizens conduct
gardening or horticulture for their own needs; the territory of a horticultural
non-prot partnership; the territory of the homeowners’ association; the
territory of a gardening non-prot partnership; consumer cooperative
territory; the territory of the partnership of real estate owners; yurts.
The Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated
November 18, 2013, No. 1038 approved the Regulation on the Ministry
of Construction and Housing and Communal Services of the Russian
Federation, subparagraph 5.4.86 of which the Ministry of Construction
is authorized to establish the types of elements of the planning structure
(Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation, 2013).
827
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 72 (2022): 823-841
By order of the Ministry of Construction and Housing and Communal
Services of the Russian Federation No. 738/pr dated April 25, 2017, the
types of elements of the planning structure were approved: district;
micro district; quarter; common area, except for elements of the planning
structure included in the road network; the territory where citizens conduct
gardening or horticulture for their own needs; the territory of the transport
hub; the territory occupied by a linear object and (or) intended for the
placement of a linear object, except for the street-road network and directly
– the street-road network (Order of the Ministry of Construction and
Housing and Communal Services of the Russian Federation, 2017).
Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 1221
of November 19, 2014, is an act regulating legal relations in the eld of
addressing (2014). The address, according to paragraph 1 of Article 2 of
Federal Law No. 443-FZ of December 28, 2013 “On the federal information
address system and on amendments to the Federal Law “On general
principles of organizing local self-government in the Russian Federation “ is
a description of the location of the address object, structured following the
principles of organizing local self-government in the Russian Federation
and including, among other things, the name of an element of the street
and road network and (or) the name of an element of the planning structure
(if necessary), as well as a digital and (or) alphanumeric designation of the
address object, allowing it to be identied (Federal Law of the Russian
Federation, 2013).
Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 1038 of
November 18, 2013, establishes the powers of the Ministry of Construction
of the Russian Federation, which is a federal executive authority that
performs functions for the development and implementation of state policy
and regulation, including in the eld of urban planning, but except for
territorial planning (Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation,
2013).
Thus, there is an obvious discrepancy in the system of normative legal
regulation on the types of elements of the planning structure, formally
generated by the spheres of regulation distributed among the executive
authorities.
However, it seems that this discrepancy has a true nature of uncertainty in
the regulation of the relations of the actual planning structure, the elements
of which therefore do not have a denition, but only an enumeration.
That is, an element of the planning structure should be formalized as an
institution of relations on the planning of the territory, having independent
goals and objectives.
Content analysis in the absence of a legal concept of “planning structure”
allows distinguishing two semantic components in it: “planning” and
828
Victor Aleksandrovich Mayboroda y Pavel Pavlovich Spirin
Modern urban development policy: normative regulation
“structure”. Planning is a tool for a long-term logical assumption about a
certain period (planning horizon), the onset of which is extrapolated from
the corresponding period of previous experience. A logical assumption
can have both a time vector and space, a certain territory, as the sphere
of application. Federal Law No. 172-FZ of June 28, 2014 “On strategic
planning in the Russian Federation” in paragraphs 18 and 19 of Article 3
denes the medium-term planning period (from 3 to 6 years) and the long-
term planning period (over 6 years) (Federal Law of the Russian Federation,
2014).
By virtue of parts 10 and 11 of Article 9 of the Town Planning Code of the
Russian Federation, territorial planning schemes of the Russian Federation
are approved for a period of 10 to 20 years, and master plans of settlements,
master plans of urban districts are approved for at least twenty years. That
is, considering the above criterion, these documents are long-term planning
documents.
The documentation on the planning of the territory, according to the
denition given in Article 41 of the Town Planning Code of the Russian
Federation, in contrast to the above documents of territorial planning,
covers only the territory, but not the time vector in any medium-term,
long-term, by the pattern of its assumption. In fairness, we should point out
that the law does not imply the possibility of covering any desired territory
with documentation on the planning of the territory. The list of cases upon
the occurrence of which the placement of objects is carried out with the
obligatory preparation of documentation for the planning of the territory is
exhaustive and is dened in part 3 of article 43 of the Town Planning Code
of the Russian Federation.
The structure is an ordered structure of the mutually dependent elements
of an object. The above long-term planning documents have the main element
of the structure – functional zoning. By virtue of paragraph 5 of Article 1 of
the Town Planning Code of the Russian Federation, functional zones are
zones for which documents of territorial planning determine borders and
functional purpose Summing up the above, it should be concluded that the
planning structure (in this case, the territory) is an ordered representation
of the future development of this territory, mutually organized according to
the functional purpose of the part of the territory dened by the borders,
determined by the territorial planning document or the documentation
on the planning of the territory. This understanding is consistent with the
denition of territorial planning. According to paragraph 2 of Article 1 of
the Town Planning Code of the Russian Federation, territorial planning.
The above does not allow considering the elements of the planning
structure directly as part of the territory. According to the above, the
elements of the planning structure should rst be included in the functional
zone, and only then, being elements of the functional zone and having the
829
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 72 (2022): 823-841
immanent properties of a specic functional zone, open the possibility of
forming a spatial organization with documentation on the planning of the
territory. That is, an element of the planning structure is not a part of the
territory, but a part of the functional zone to be allocated in the territorial
planning document.
Contrary to what is given in the urban planning legislation, the elements
of the planning structure are distinguished not in the development of
territorial planning documents, but, according to part 1 of Article 41 of
the Town Planning Code of the Russian Federation, with documentation
on the planning of the territory, the formation of which becomes possible
only in the presence of territorial zones, that is, after the transformation of
the regime of functional zones into the regime of territorial zones from the
documents of territorial planning in the rules of land use and development
– within the meaning of part 1 of Article 41.1., of the Town Planning Code
of the Russian Federation.
Thus, the property of planning in time is lost, and the planning structure,
according to the revealed meaning of the term in the system of normative
regulation, means exclusively planning of the spatial organization, that
is, of already formed development. In this situation, it is pointless to try
to organize the space according to the best models from the accumulated
experience of mankind in urban planning.
Accordingly, the disclosure of the semantic content of the concept of
“element of the planning structure” in the presumed meaning of striving for
the better becomes unattainable, and therefore the lack of legal certainty
concerning the elements is explained by purely utilitarian needs: each of
the elements of the planning structure is not formed by itself, in search of
an optimal ratio between the number and availability of infrastructures, but
is used in the most appropriate way to the already formed building.
2.2. Formation of the “Sirius” Federal Territory
The Federal Constitutional Law of the Russian Federation on the
Amendment to the Constitution of the Russian Federation of March 14,
2020, No. 1-FKZ “On improving the regulation of certain issues of the
organization and functioning of public power”, among other amendments
to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, reformulated the content of
part 1 of Article 67 (Federal Constitutional Law of the Russian Federation,
2020). The Federal Constitutional Law has supplemented the norm with
new proposals that federal territories can be created on the territory of the
Russian Federation following federal law. The organization of public power
in federal territories is established by the specied federal law. Federal
Law No. 437-FZ of December 22, 2020 “On the “Sirius” federal territory”
(hereinafter referred to as Law No. 437-FZ) created the rst federal territory
of the same name (Federal Law of the Russian Federation, 2020).
830
Victor Aleksandrovich Mayboroda y Pavel Pavlovich Spirin
Modern urban development policy: normative regulation
Article 2 of Law No. 437-FZ denes that a public legal entity of national
strategic importance is recognized as the Sirius federal territory. Further in
the text of the above norm, the goals of its creation are xed. The “public
law education” term is used in industry legislation and the doctrine of both
private law and public relations, but in respect to this aspect, it is important
to understand that this public law education can exercise public powers in
the totality of their separation in ordinary legal regimes through unied
public authorities. The public authorities of the federal territory exercise
federal powers, the powers of the state authorities of the subjects of the
Russian Federation, and municipal powers.
According to the provisions of Law No. 437-FZ, the goals of creating
a federal territory are indicated: a) ensuring comprehensive sustainable
socio-economic and innovative development of the territory; b) increasing
the investment attractiveness of the territory; c) the need to preserve the
Olympic sports, cultural and natural heritage; d) creation of favorable
conditions for the identication, self-realization, and development of
talents; e) implementation of the priorities of scientic and technological
development of the Russian Federation.
The goals specied in paragraphs “a”, “b” and “d” are the goals that all
public legal entities strive to achieve in one form or another, and thus, only
achieving the goals given in paragraphs “c” and “d” is non-trivial. That is,
the creation of a new public-legal entity – the federal territory pursues the
achievement of two new goals that were not previously set before public-
legal entities: the preservation of the Olympic sports, cultural and natural
heritage, and the creation of favorable conditions for the identication, self-
realization, and development of talents (Mayboroda, 2021).
According to the provisions of Article 2 of Law No. 437-FZ, the federal
territory is dened as a public legal entity, which qualitatively distinguishes
this entity from the territories of advanced development, special economic
zones, innovative development centers, and similar territorial entities
created in the previous time, united according to the criterion of delegating
public powers to a private legal entity, usually called a “management
company”.
The purpose of such delegation is the establishment by the management
company of the specics of development in the isolated territory, thanks
to which the legislator assumes especially intensive economic growth. In
contrast to the above experience, in the case of the federal territory, the
delegation of state management powers, including the establishment of the
specics of economic activity to a private entity, has not been made. Due
to another constitutional innovation, public authorities are being created
in the federal territory, the essential content of the nature of managerial
decisions of which diers from the powers of state authorities and self-
government bodies.
831
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 72 (2022): 823-841
The “public authorities” term introduced by the novelties of the
Constitution has not received its normative legal denition. Article 2 of
Federal Law No. 394-FL of December 8, 2020 “On the State Council of
the Russian Federation” denes the concept of a unied system of public
power, which, within the meaning of this norm, means the entire set of
state authorities and local self-government bodies.
Federal Law No. 271-FZ of July 1, 2021 “On amendments to the Federal
Law “On the “Sirius” federal territory” denes the legal possibilities for
xing the specics of urban development activities in the federal territory
“Sirius” – Article 46.1 of Law No. 437-FZ (Federal Law of the Russian
Federation, 2021). It is the public authorities of the federal territory that are
given the opportunity to determine the specicity in regulation, including
urban planning legal relations. However, the provisions of this law do
not aect the possibility of establishing features in the elements of the
planning structure of the federal territory, and paragraph 4 of part 2 of this
Article provides public authorities with the opportunity to determine the
features of the composition, content, procedure for developing, approving,
including documentation on the planning of the territory prepared within
the boundaries of such a federal territory. It is not obvious that it is possible
to independently determine the types of elements of the planning structure
and their content.
3. Discussions
3.1. Foreign experience of urban planning in federal territories
Directly, the term “federal” allows asserting that the territorial entity
in question can only be located in a federal state. The very approach of
granting a dierentiated scope of rights and obligations to the subjects of
the federation creates prerequisites for the formation of the idea that the
federation may consist of other elements than exclusively only from the
subjects, even if they are dierentiated, but endowed with territorial and
public autonomy.
Thus, the federations consisting only of subjects in the literature include
the Republic of Austria, the Kingdom of Belgium (given that its “two-layer”
federalism implies the existence of only homogeneous territorial units
in each layer), the Federal Republic of Germany, the Federated States
of Micronesia, the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal, the United
Arab Emirates, the Union of Comoros, the Federation of St. Kitts and
Nevis, Sudan, the United Republic of Tanzania, the Swiss Confederation
(Praskova, 2013). These states do not have entities that are not endowed
with the status of a subject of the federation.
832
Victor Aleksandrovich Mayboroda y Pavel Pavlovich Spirin
Modern urban development policy: normative regulation
In addition to federations consisting only of subjects, a signicant array
of them is formed by states, which include territories and (or) other entities
that are not endowed with the status of subjects. Currently, there is no
terminological unity in the name of the parts of the federation that do not
have the status of a subject of the federation in Russian legal thought.
For example, the federal structure in India is completely directly
divided between the States of India and the territories (union territories).
The Union territories, as well as the national capital district of Delhi, are
governed by federal authorities, although in some cases they have their
parliaments and governments, but with a very limited range of powers. The
federal legislation of the Indian Republic is directly applicable in the Union
territories (Pandey, 2012). However, another circumstance is important in
the given example – the capital district.
In many federal states of the world, the experience, applied for the
rst time in the United States, is used to create a special federal territory
– a federal district intended to house the federal government and federal
authorities. Currently, the Republic of Argentina, the Federal Republic
of Brazil, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, the Republic of India,
the United States of Mexico, the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Islamic
Republic of Pakistan, the United States, Ethiopia has the federal territory
or district for the placement of the capital.
In the United States of America, which for the rst time implemented
the idea of federal-state construction with visible isolation of the capital
district, the history of this issue began in 1790, in which the “Act of
Residence” (full name – “An Act for establishing the temporary and
permanent seat of the Government of the United States”) was adopted (U.S.
Statutes at Large, 1790). The document, dated July 16, 1790, assigned an
area to the US government, not exceeding ten square miles and located on
the Potomac River, in a place between the mouths of the East Branch and
the Conococheague Creek3.
The Australian Union and Malaysia have similarly created special
territories for the placement of capitals. The Australian Capital Territory
(the location of the city of Canberra and the seat of the Union authorities)
has its authorities, whose powers (including legislative ones) are in many
respects similar to the powers of the relevant state bodies, as well as
representatives in the Federal Parliament.
The Australian Capital Territory was created by the law “Seat of
Government Acceptance Act”. The named Law has the number 23, signed
by the Governor-General Lord Dudley on December 13, 1909, together with
3 “That a district of territory, not exceeding ten miles square, to be located as hereafter directed on the
river Potomac, at some place between the mouths of the Eastern Branch and Connogochegue, be, and
the same is hereby accepted for the permanent seat of the government of the United States”.
833
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 72 (2022): 823-841
the Law on the Surrender of the seat of Government in the Parliament of
New South Wales, allowed transferring “an area of about 900 square miles”
from New South Wales to create a federal capital territory as the seat of the
Commonwealth government.
The federal territory of Kuala Lumpur (on the territory of which the
capital is located), following article 1 of the Constitution of Malaysia, is not
part of the territory of the state of Selangor, it is a territory of the federation.
The territory of Kuala Lumpur has had the status of the “national and
legislative capital” since 2001, and the executive and judicial bodies have
been transferred to a specially built center in the federal territory of
Putrajaya, (physically – formerly a suburb of Kuala Lumpur).
The idea to replace Kuala Lumpur with Putrajaya as the capital appeared
in the late 1980s.
It is this formation that can serve as a guide in the formation of the
Russian federal territory. Therewith, the Federal Government paid the
Selangor State Government for approximately 11,320 acres (4,581.04 ha)
of land in Prang Besar.
Construction began in August 1995, and it was Malaysia’s largest project
and one of the largest in Southeast Asia, with an estimated nal cost of
8.1 US Dollars Billion (33.29 billion ringgit). All government ministries
had moved to Putrajaya by 2005, except for the metropolitan Ministry of
International Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Defense, and the Ministry
of Labor.
The successes achieved in this eld – the transformation of the capital
of Malaysia into a symbol of prosperity, the nancial capital of Asia have
formed a stable idea that the separation of the federal territory as an entity
that is not part of any of the states is one of the elements necessary for a
successful economic strategy.
This experience was reproduced again. In addition, the new capital
Putrajaya is designed to be such a personication of success that when
designing and creating it, all the advanced ideas about a “smart city”
were taken into account, combining high technologies and ecological
reconstruction of the landscape used in the construction of the territory.
Another noteworthy example is Pakistan, which gained independence
on August 14, 1947, as a result of the partition of the former British colony of
British India on religious grounds (Latsky, 2013). The capital of Pakistan,
Islamabad, was built in 1960 to replace Karachi as the capital of Pakistan.
As the Islamabad development information resource points out, “there
was a feeling that it was necessary to build a new and permanent capital
to reect the diversity of the Pakistani nation” (Government of Pakistan,
2021).
834
Victor Aleksandrovich Mayboroda y Pavel Pavlovich Spirin
Modern urban development policy: normative regulation
However, it would be more correct to say that as a result of the post-
colonial division of India and Pakistan into two independent countries on
religious grounds, there were refugees in both one and the other country,
whose placement and integration into social life was realized concerning
Pakistan through the construction of new capital. The logic of this event is
very straightforward and conveys the message in a direct form: a new state
is a new capital, and the name of the capital is also “self-explanatory”: “the
city of Islam”, being in correspondence with the name of the republic – the
Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
The capital territory of Islamabad is such because of the planned
creation of new capital and is not endowed with separate visible rights that
separate it from the four federal elements – the provinces of Pakistan. Its
status as a capital territory is enshrined in the Constitution of Pakistan,
which was adopted in 1972 and operated until 1977 when a military coup
led by General Zia-ul-Haq was carried out, after which its operation was
suspended until 1985. Such a situation of the capital – the planned creation,
clear zoning of the territory, and direct federal administration led to the fact
that Islamabad became very dierent from other territories of Pakistan.
Today, the administration of the federal capital territory of Pakistan is
located in a complex hierarchy of federal bodies and territorial development
bodies (Capital Development Authority Organogramm, 2020).
Finally, the largest number of federal capital territories concerning the
world region is observed in Latin America. The “Distrito Federal” term
itself, meaning the Federal District in Portuguese and Spanish, is used to
refer to the respective territories in Brazil – the Federal District of Brazil;
The Federal District of Venezuela, where the capital of Venezuela Caracas
is located, the former Federal District in Argentina, converted to the
Autonomous City of Buenos Aires in 1994, and the former Federal District
of Mexico converted to Mexico City in January 2016.
The Federal District of Brazil is the third capital of the country, after
Salvador and Rio de Janeiro. The decision on the transfer was made on April
21, 1960, by President Juscelino Kubitschek de Oliveira and the transfer
was carried out in a specially created federal territory for this purpose.
The period of preparation from 1955 to 1960, based on the so-called
“pilot plan of Brazil”, is directly transferred to the discussion. The period
of discussion about the transfer of the capital began in 1891 when the rst
constitution of the Republic of Brazil determined that the future capital
should be located on a large rectangular plateau inside the state of Goias
at a distance of nine hundred kilometers from Rio de Janeiro – as not only
a symbol of liberation from colonial dependence on Portugal but also as a
means of security from capture from the sea. However, the constitutional
crisis of 1955 “helped” to implement the idea directly Juscelino Kubitschek
won in the democratic elections that followed, one of whose election slogans
835
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 72 (2022): 823-841
was the construction of a new capital (Brasil, 2021). Therewith, the reason
for such construction was the need for the development of the interior of
the country, which continued to remain sparsely populated.
The Bolivar Republic of Venezuela has 23 states (estados), 1
Metropolitan District (Distrito Capital) in which the capital Caracas is
located, and 1 separate administrative-territorial unit – federal possessions
(Dependencias Federales) which includes almost all the islands belonging to
Venezuela. The capital Territory, according to article 18 of the Constitution
of Venezuela, is divided into municipalities – directly the municipalities of
the capital federal territory and the municipalities of the State of Miranda,
which includes the federal capital Territory (Current Constitution of
Venezuela, 1999).
The federal capital District in Argentina, transformed into the
autonomous city of Buenos Aires in 1994 as a result of constitutional
reform, is currently the federal capital in which the government of Argentina
is located, but it is separated from the subject of the same name – the
province of Buenos Aires. The reform was a consequence of the war for the
Falkland Islands (Constitution of the Argentine Nation, 1994). According to
the current version of the Constitution of Argentina of 1994, article 3, it is
provided that the federal authorities, based on a special law, are located in
the capital, with the preliminary cession of the territory for this purpose by
the legislatures (legislative assemblies) of one or more provinces for these
purposes. Article 45 directly proceeds from the assumption of the transfer
of the capital from Buenos Aires, indicating “if it is moved” (Constitution of
the Argentine Nation, 1994).
The Federal Capital Territory is an area in the central part of Nigeria.
The capital of Nigeria, Abuja, is located on this territory.
The Federal Capital Territory was formed in 1976 from parts of the old
states of Kwara, Niger, Kaduna, and Plateau, with most of the territory
obtained outside the state of Niger, located in the Middle Belt of the country.
According to the current, fth Constitution of Nigeria of 1999, the existence
of a capital federal territory is directly stipulated in article 2 (Constitution
of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999).
The Administration of the Federal Capital Territory was established by
President Olusegun Obasanjo on December 31, 2004, after the abolition of
the Ministry of the Federal Capital Territory and the proclamation of the
course for the adoption of the 2014 Olympic Games. Seven new divisions
were created for education, transport, agriculture and rural development,
health and social services, social development, legal services, and territorial
councils.
The goal was to carry out the reconstruction of the city to eliminate
slums and formalize it in the perception of the modern capital. For these
836
Victor Aleksandrovich Mayboroda y Pavel Pavlovich Spirin
Modern urban development policy: normative regulation
purposes, a single waste management service has been created, a single
geographic information system service that provides the infrastructure of
geospatial data in a single coordinate system to register rights to land plots
in such a way that it would allow for re-registration of rights to them on the
legal basis of a counter submission.
A comparative analysis with foreign legal systems allows concluding that
when forming federal territories, in some cases it was possible to achieve
the goal of forming such an architectural and urban appearance that would
correspond to the goals of forming a federal territory. These cases are based
on the suppression of the property rights of previous right holders, or on
such a development, the territory intended for which had no other owners
than a public legal entity.
3.1. Elements of the planning structure of the “Sirius” federal
territory
It seems necessary to formalize a general legal denition of the elements
of the planning structure of the “Sirius” federal territory. Such a situation
will allow further institutionalizing the universal idea of an element of the
planning structure as an institution and its inuence on the formation of
the appearance of the federal territory will already be denied. The following
denition is proposed – these are parts of the territory of the federal
territory, the allocation and determination of the boundaries of which is
carried out by documentation on the planning and surveying of the territory
to ensure harmony in life.
The selection of the proposed elements implies the possibility of both
independent preparation of documentation on the territory planning for
each of them, and the preparation and approval of documentation on the
territory planning of the entire “Sirius” federal territory. As can be seen
from the list below, it borrows in part the existing elements of the planning
structure and oers new ones that correspond exclusively to the planning
of the “Sirius” federal territory based on the goals of its creation. In this
situation, the presence of uncertainty in the already existing legal order is
rather a favorable factor, because the presence of the specics of the federal
territory, per se obvious in such a situation, lls the proposed regulation with
the degree of stability that will act as an element of investment condence.
The allocation of elements corresponds with the following goals:
• “Cluster” element: create favorable conditions for the identication,
self-realization, and development of talents, etc.
• “Olympic heritage” element: preserving the Olympic sports, cultural
and natural heritage;
• “Embankment”, “beach” element: innovative development of the
territory and increasing its investment attractiveness.
837
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 72 (2022): 823-841
Other elements correspond to the goals of ensuring a comprehensive
sustainable socio-economic development of the territory, among which the
key element is the “quarter”, the area of which, if the rule on its orthogonality
is observed, together with the prohibition of crossing the lines of the street
and road network at sharp angles, should lead to its square-oriented form
to an area of about 4-5 hectares. Blocks are combined into microdistricts
and (or) clusters, the shape of which is also oriented to a square, rectangle,
triangle, tetrahedron, etc.
The boundaries of not all elements of the planning structure are marked
with red lines. Thus, the block, cluster, and microdistrict are located within
the boundaries of the street and road network lines, not their red lines.
The zone of placement of linear objects and the Olympic heritage element
are located within the boundaries formed by the sequential connection
of characteristic points. It is important to emphasize that the identity of
denitions, in this case, is based not only on linguistic identity but also on
identity based on the unity of semantics (Tsapko et al., 2018).
Types of elements of the planning structure of the federal territory:
1. The zone of placement of linear objects is an element for placing
linear objects, the boundaries of which are dened by a sequential
connection of characteristic points, consisting of land plots, parts of
land plots.
2. A block is an element of an orthogonal conguration with sides from
150 to 300 meters, the entrance groups of buildings, structures, and
constructions within which are adjacent to the red lines of the road
network.
3. Cluster – an element consisting of blocks, microdistricts united by
the unity of purpose, the borders of which are adjacent to the main
streets of citywide signicance.
4. Microdistrict – an element consisting of several quarters, united by
the unity of social, public-business, and other service organization
within its limits.
5. Embankment is a linear element designed to provide unhindered
access to an unlimited number of people whose borders are dened
by red lines, consisting of land plots.
6. The Olympic heritage is an element intended for the preservation
of the Olympic sports, cultural and natural heritage, the boundaries
of which are dened by a sequential connection of characteristic
points, consisting of land plots.
838
Victor Aleksandrovich Mayboroda y Pavel Pavlovich Spirin
Modern urban development policy: normative regulation
7. Beach – a linear element designed to ensure unhindered access of
an unlimited number of persons to a water body, the boundaries of
which are dened by red lines, consisting of land plots.
8. The territory of common use is an element for ensuring unhindered
access to an unlimited number of persons whose borders are dened
by red lines, consisting of land, land plots, and parts of land plots.
A street and road network are an element intended for placing
hierarchically organized linear objects: avenues, (main streets), streets,
driveways, alleys, ascents, descents, boulevards, dedicated pedestrian,
bicycle, bicycle-pedestrian paths, park roads, alleys, and other roads, with
borders dened by red lines, the intersection of which is not allowed at
sharp angles of less than 45 degrees.
Conclusion
The conducted research of the Institute of legal regulation of the
elements of the planning structure concerning the formation of the
innovative appearance of the “Sirius” federal territory allows concluding:
rstly, the lack of certainty in the list of these elements and the lack of xing
the concept in the Russian legal order; secondly, only a new development
based on the loss of previous property rights by right holders allowed foreign
federal territories to nd innovative development opportunities; thirdly,
the elements of the planning structure proposed for the development of the
“Sirius” federal territory are based both on the goals of its creation and take
into account the territorial features of the location of the territory.
Thus, the public authorities of the “Sirius” federal territory can
implement the proposed regulation of the institute of elements of territory
planning, through which an innovative appearance corresponding to the
name will be formed on the territory of the Imereti Lowland – the “Sirius”
federal territory, that is, the brightest territory in the Russian Federation,
as Sirius is the brightest star in the sky.
Bibliographical References
BRASIL. 2021. Available online. In: https://brazil.ucoz.ru/index/stolica/0-31.
Date of consultation: 14/06/2021.
CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ORGANOGRAM. 2020. Information
Technology Directorate. https://www.cda.gov.pk/documents/docs/
CDA-Organogram.pdf. Date of consultation: 14/06/2021.
839
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 72 (2022): 823-841
CONSTITUTION OF THE ARGENTINE NATION. 1994. Available online. In:
http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Parties/Argentina/Leyes/constitucion.
pdf. Date of consultation: 14/06/2021.
CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA. 1999. WIPO
IP Portal. Available online. In: https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/text/179202.
Date of consultation: 14/06/2021.
CONSTITUTION OF VENEZUELA. 1999. With Amendment No. 1 dated
February 15, 2009. Gaceta Ocial Extraordinario 1999. No. 5.908.
DECREE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION NO.
1038. 2013. “On the Ministry of Construction, Housing and Communal
Services of the Russian Federation”. Available online. In: http://
government.ru/docs/8287/. Date of consultation: 14/06/2021.
DECREE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION NO.
1221. 2014. “On approval of the rules for assigning, changing and
canceling addresses”. Available online. In: http://government.ru/docs/
all/93651/. Date of consultation: 14/06/2021.
FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION ON
THE AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE RUSSIAN
FEDERATION NO. 1-FKZ. 2020. “On improving the regulation of
certain issues of the organization and functioning of public power”.
Available online. In: http://www.kremlin.ru/acts/bank/45280. Date of
consultation: 14/06/2021.
FEDERAL LAW OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION NO. 172-FZ. 2014. “On
strategic planning in the Russian Federation”. Available online. In:
http://pravo.gov.ru/proxy/ips/?docbody=&nd=102354386. Date of
consultation: 14/06/2021.
FEDERAL LAW OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION NO. 271-FZ. 2021. “On
amendments to the Federal Law “On the “Sirius” federal territory”.
Available online. In: http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/Document/
View/0001202107010052. Date of consultation: 14/06/2021.
FEDERAL LAW OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION NO. 437-FZ. 2020. “On the
“Sirius” federal territory”. Available online. In: http://publication.pravo.
gov.ru/Document/View/0001202012220082. Date of consultation:
14/06/2021.
FEDERAL LAW OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION NO. 443-FZ. 2013. “On the
federal information address system and on amendments to the Federal
Law “On general principles of organizing local self-government in the
Russian Federation”. Available online. In: https://rg.ru/2013/12/30/
samoupravlenie-dok.html. Date of consultation:14/06/2021.
840
Victor Aleksandrovich Mayboroda y Pavel Pavlovich Spirin
Modern urban development policy: normative regulation
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN. 2021. Capital Development Authority.
Islamabad. Available online. In: https://www.cda.gov.pk/about_
islamabad/history/#ad-image-0. Date of consultation: 14/06/2021.
LAFITSKY, Vladimir. (Ed.). 2013. Comparative law: national legal systems.
Vol. 3. Legal systems of Asia. Institut zakonodatelstva i sravnitelnogo
pravovedeniya pri Pravitelstve RF; Yuridicheskaya rma “Kontrakt”.
Moscow, Russia.
MAYBORODA, Victor Aleksandrovich. 2018. “Phenomenology of collective will
in the management of shared agricultural land plots” In: International
journal of engineering and technology (UAE). Vol. 4, pp. 351-354.
MAYBORODA, Victor Aleksandrovich. 2021. “The concept of the territory of
the federal territory “Sirius”” In: Rossiiskaya yustitsiya. Vol. 3, pp. 55-58.
MITYAGIN, S.D; SPIRIN, P.P. 2019. “Urban planning – the basis of the budget
for sustainable development of the administrative-territorial entity” In:
Promyshlennoe i grazhdanskoe stroitelstvo. Vol. 1, pp. 16-21.
ORDER OF THE MINISTRY OF CONSTRUCTION AND HOUSING
AND COMMUNAL SERVICES OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
NO. 738/PR. 2017. “On the approval of the types of elements
of the planning structure” (as amended on May 13, 2021).
Available online. In: http://publication.pravo.gov.ru/Document/
View/0001201705290032?index=1&rangeSize=1. Date of consultation:
14/06/2021.
ORDER OF THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
NO. 171N. 2015. “On approval of the list of elements of the planning
structure, elements of the street and road network, elements of
addressing objects, types of buildings (structures), premises used as
address details, and rules for abbreviated naming of address-forming
elements”. Available online. In: https://rg.ru/2020/04/20/minn-
prikaz38-site-dok.html. Date of consultation:14/06/2021.
PANDEY, L.M. 2012. Modern history of Indian states. Cyber Tech Publications.
London, UK.
PRASKOVA, Svetlana Vasilievna. 2013. “About federal territorial units” In:
Aktualnye problemy rossiiskogo prava. Vol. 12, pp. 1543-1551.
TOWN PLANNING CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION No.
190-FZ. 2004. Available online. In: http://pravo.gov.ru/proxy/
ips/?docbody=&nd=102090643. Date of consultation: 14/06/2021.
841
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 72 (2022): 823-841
TSAPKO, Maxim Ivanovich; VALYAROVSKIY, Fedor Ivanovich;
MAIBORODA, Elvira Tagirovna; KHUSAINOVA, Evgeniia Nikolaevna;
VARNAVSKAYA, Oxana Olegovna. 2018. “Language identity as a
unifying identity: linguistic, ethnopolitical and international legal
aspects” In: Space and culture, India. Vol. 2, No. 6, pp. 121-128.
U.S. STATUTES AT LARGE. 1790. Available online. In: https://govtrackus.
s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/1/STATUTE-1-Pg130.pdf. Date
of consultation: 14/06/2021.
www.luz.edu.ve
www.serbi.luz.edu.ve
www.produccioncienticaluz.org
Esta revista fue editada en formato digital y publicada
en enero de 2022, por el Fondo Editorial Serbiluz,
Universidad del Zulia. Maracaibo-Venezuela
Vol.40 Nº 72
