Administrative liability for offenses in the field of historical memory protection in the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus

The subject of the research is the social relations that develop in the field of the protection of historical memory in the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus. The focus of the study is on the norms of administrative legislation of the two countries that establish administrative responsibility for offenses that encroach upon historical memory. The author conducts a comparative legal study of the norms of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation dated December 30, 2001, No. 195-FZ, and the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Republic of Belarus dated January 6, 2021, No. 91-Z, which establish liability for offenses in the field of protection of historical memory. Special attention is given to the analysis of the norms regulating administrative liability for propaganda and public demonstration of Nazi symbols and attributes, for offenses in the field of protecting material historical and cultural heritage, and for the denial and distortion of historical truth about the Great Patriotic War. The research is based on a systematic approach. The key method of the study is comparative legal analysis, which enables the comparison of legal norms regulating liability for administrative offenses in Russia and Belarus and identifies their common features and differences. Alongside this, formal-logical and historical-legal methods were also employed. The novelty of the research lies in that the author identifies a whole set of norms in the administrative legislation of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus establishing liability for administrative offenses in the field of the protection of historical memory. However, the author also discovers noticeable differences in the legislation of the two countries related to the administrative and legal regulation of the area of interest. In particular, Belarusian administrative legislation reflects a trend towards isolating administrative responsibility for offenses that encroach upon historical memory. In contrast, in the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the compositions of administrative offenses in the area of protection of historical memory are dispersed. At the same time, the author concludes that in the trends of improving the institution of administrative responsibility in the Russian Federation, there is a clear orientation towards the protection not only of the material historical and cultural heritage of the peoples of Russia but also of its spiritual and moral foundation, which forms the basis of a common Russian civil identity.