Proactive Prosecutorial Oversight for Ensuring the Rule of Law in State Administration through a Risk-Based Model
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59022/ujldp.627Keywords:
Prosecutor’s Office, Rule of Law, Proactive Supervision, Risk-Based Approach, Public Administration, Legality, Digital Prosecutor’s OfficeAbstract
This study examines the legal and institutional foundations of prosecutorial supervision over the activities of state administration bodies in the Republic of Uzbekistan and analyzes the ongoing transition from a traditionally reactive model of oversight to a proactive, risk-based model. Reactive supervision, historically the dominant mode of prosecutorial activity, is triggered only by an already-committed violation or a complaint, and consequently intervenes after harm to legality has occurred. The article argues that ensuring the rule of law in public administration increasingly requires the prosecutor's office to identify and address the causes and conditions conducive to violations before they materialize. Drawing on the constitutional and statutory framework governing prosecutorial supervision, recent national policy on the digitalization of oversight, and the international theoretical literature on responsive and risk-based regulation, the study maps the existing normative basis for proactive prosecutorial activity, identifies the gaps separating current policy from a coherent risk-based methodology, and advances proposals for a legally codified model accompanied by procedural safeguards against arbitrary interference in the activities of state bodies.
References
Ayres, I., & Braithwaite, J. (1992). Responsive regulation: Transcending the deregulation debate. Oxford University Press. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/responsive-regulation-9780195073188
Baldwin, R., & Black, J. (2008). Really responsive regulation. The Modern Law Review, 71(1), 59–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2008.00681.x
Black, J. (2005). The emergence of risk-based regulation and the new public management in the United Kingdom. Public Law (Autumn), 512–549.
Davis, K. C. (1969). Discretionary justice: A preliminary inquiry. Louisiana State University Press. https://lsupress.org/books/detail/discretionary-justice/
Fekih, R., Ben Ayed, Y., Abid, M., & Alimi, A. M. (2025). Dataset on artificial intelligence regulatory frameworks across jurisdictions. Data in Brief, 61, 111949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2025.111949
Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. Brookings Institution Press. https://www.brookings.edu/books/building-the-virtual-state/
Fuller, L. L. (1969). The morality of law (Rev. ed.). Yale University Press. https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300104721/the-morality-of-law/
Hood, C., Rothstein, H., & Baldwin, R. (2001). The government of risk: Understanding risk regulation regimes. Oxford University Press. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-government-of-risk-9780199243631
Sparrow, M. K. (2000). The regulatory craft: Controlling risks, solving problems, and managing compliance. Brookings Institution Press. https://www.brookings.edu/books/the-regulatory-craft/
Tamanaha, B. Z. (2004). On the rule of law: History, politics, theory. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812378
Wade, H. W. R., & Forsyth, C. F. (2014). Administrative law (11th ed.). Oxford University Press. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/administrative-law-9780198714927
Yeung, K. (2018). Algorithmic regulation: A critical interrogation. Regulation & Governance, 12(4), 505–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12158
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Uzbek Journal of Law and Digital Policy
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
