Region in the National Security System of Russia

AnnaA. Mikhaylova

  Open Access OPEN ACCESS  Peer Reviewed PEER-REVIEWED

Region in the National Security System of Russia

AnnaA. Mikhaylova

Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University, Kaliningrad, Russia


Security as an essential attribute of public life and the object of scientific knowledge is of considerable interest for economic and social geography and regional economy. The national security system is a multi-level and multi-component structure in which the region is a subject, object and space for implementing the state policy on security. Nowadays globalization is the factor that has a significant impact on the regions within in the country and causes the emergence of new challenges and threats to their socio-economic and innovation development. In response to the challenges of globalization, regions are seeking to expand their powers and acquire unique competencies that will enable them to ensure security in the long run. This article focuses on the issue of regional security in Russia by identifying a number of factors, the overcoming of which will significantly increase the effectiveness of public policy in this area.

At a glance: Figures

Cite this article:

  • Mikhaylova, AnnaA.. "Region in the National Security System of Russia." Social and Economic Geography 1.1 (2015): 9-15.
  • Mikhaylova, A. (2015). Region in the National Security System of Russia. Social and Economic Geography, 1(1), 9-15.
  • Mikhaylova, AnnaA.. "Region in the National Security System of Russia." Social and Economic Geography 1, no. 1 (2015): 9-15.

Import into BibTeX Import into EndNote Import into RefMan Import into RefWorks

1. Introduction

Security issues are fundamental in maintaining the integrity, sovereignty and sustainable development of nations and societies. It is no coincidence that interest in the problem of security in the scientific community continues unabated for several centuries. The origins of conceptual perceptions over security date back to the works of ancient philosophers and thinkers who saw it as a kind of condition characterized by the absence of danger in the environment [41]. Starting from the twelfth century, understanding of the essence of security shifted to the security assessment of the human spirit through the unity with God [15]. In the epoch of Renaissance, social security was defined by equality and joint labor, and its major threat was considered to be the gap between culture and politics [14]. Philosophers of modern times (e.g. T. Hobbes, B. Spinoza, J. Locke, F. Bacon) in their writings devoted much attention to the role of government in providing national security, considering the public and the state security as identical. At the same period, the concept of safety culture was introduced. The Age of Enlightenment (e.g. J. Rousseau, Voltaire, D. Diderot, P. Holbach) was marked by the recognition of the importance of personal security as an integral part of the security of the whole society (i.e. public safety), as well as the formation of the foundations for international security. Significant contribution to the development of ideas about national security and the role of the state was made by German philosophers of the XVIII-XIX centuries: I. Kant, I. Fichte, G. Hegel, and others. In the XIX – early XX centuries, dominant influence on the perception of security had a variety of political doctrines (Marxism, socialism, etc.) and sociological theories and concepts (the theory of solidarity, the theory of social progress, the concept of social institutions, etc.). This determined the focus on the examination of the conditions of public safety based on the principles of social compromise, collective action, and social equality [14].

The result of the development of ideas about security in social sciences and humanities at the turn of the XX – XXI centuries was the formation of several basic approaches to its definition. We will hereby present a number of classifications developed by Russian scientists. According to Pavlenko [23], all ideas about the nature of security can be divided into five groups: a) security of interests; b) absence of danger; c) the property of a system; d) the activities of public authorities; e) a qualitative state. Zelenkov [41], by adhering to the similar principle, suggests four groups of security definitions via the use such concepts as: a) danger; b) security; c) danger and security; d) specialized activity (i.e. activities of a human, state, society or of the international community to identify, prevent, weaken, eliminate and reflect dangers and threats). Bondarenko [4], based on the work of his predecessors, proposes to distinguish between the protective and protective-functional definitions of security. The first category attributes definitions that consider security through the prism of state of security (i.e. preservation of the current state) from the dangers and threats and / or absence of real or potential threat. The second category includes definitions, which treat security as a subject’s ability to perform certain actions to overcome internal and external negative impacts in order to maintain individual properties, advocacy of interests, further development and self-improvement.

Certain methodological interest has the work of Pozdnyakov [25], in which he distinguishes three conceptual approaches to the nature of security: a) an official (i.e. security of interests against internal and external threats); b) a systematic-philosophical (i.e. preservation and sustainability, balance, integrity and proper functioning of the social system); c) axiological (i.e. protection of values from significant harm).

Further analysis of more than 70 definitions (without considering specific accessory), enabled to propose the following classification of security:

a) systemic – sees security as an integral and complex open system of protecting the vital interests of the object (e.g. see N. Blinov, V. Savin, V. Grebenik, B. Sapronov, M. Zelenkov and others);

b) discrete – considers security as a kind of qualitative state or a certain level of development of the object that has been achieved to date or to be achieved in the future under certain circumstances (e.g. see V. Senchagov, S. Fedoraev, V. Tambovtsev, E. Olejnikov, V. Pankov, G. Vechkanov, O. Belkov and others);

c) potential – considers security as a set of objects’ properties that determine its ability and possibility to defend its values and interests against internal and external negative impacts and provide self-development in the future (e.g. see A. Arkhipov, E. Buchwald, S. Naboichenko, Y. Vladimirov, A. Pavlov and others);

d) contextual – considers security as conditions of objects’ existence (i.e. contextual environment), upon which it is able to have influence in the course actions (e.g. see G. Ivashchenko, E. Prudius, V. Yakunin, N. Abelguzin, V. Nusratullin, and others).

Thus, in the scientific understanding security is expressed in four forms: a standalone system, a certain state of an object, its characteristics, and the conditions in which it operates. For a better understanding of the security concept, we shall elaborate over some of its properties: dynamism, uncertainty and relativity.

Property of dynamism is most evident in the course of interaction of an object with the external environment, which tends to continuous change, including under the influence of the object itself. Therefore, safety cannot be seen only as a static condition, which has once been achieved by the object (e.g. the state of protection [17]), but rather as an ongoing process ensuring its functionality and development in a constantly changing environment [29]. There is therefore a need for a dualistic view of the security concept, not only as a direct characteristic of the object, but also as its interactions with the external environment [27].

The property of dynamism is highly associated with uncertainty. The more complex security system of an object is, the higher is the uncertainty in its operations (i.e. functioning). Internal uncertainty is due to inconstancy and variability of characteristics of the subject, external uncertainty – due to environmental conditions. Increased uncertainty leads to an increased risk (i.e. threat of danger) that has to be considered when designing a security system.

Another feature of security is its relativity, which is manifested in two aspects. Firstly, security has a strong binding with an object. As it is pointed out by Prohozheva [26], security obtains a meaningful value only when it is regarded from a viewpoint of a specific object placed in certain contextual environment and conditions. The concept of security can be referred to a variety of objects (e.g. individual, business entity, region, state, society, international integration association, etc.), the choice of which defines the level of security: mega, macro, meso and micro [13] (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Levels of security enforcement

The second aspect of relativity is a consequence of the first, and is manifested in the inconsistency of ideas about security at various levels. For example, the individual’s security (i.e. personal safety) or security of a business entity may contradict the interests of the regional or national security. With the increasing regionalization, accompanied by decentralization of power and the empowerment of regional authorities, of particular importance are the issues of building security on the principles of harmonization of interests of the state and its individual subjects (i.e. administrative-territorial). In this regard, we consider it appropriate, for a closer look at the formation of ideas about national security and a role of a region in its maintenance.

2. Fundamentals of the Security Concept

2.1. National Security

Supposedly for the first time the concept of national security was used in the early twentieth century, by the President of the USA Theodore Roosevelt in his message to Congress, which was devoted to the problem of establishing control over the Panama Canal [37, 39]. Later in 1943, the idea of national security has evolved in the book written by Walter Lippmann, “U.S. Foreign Policy: Shield of the Republic”, where he formulated it as a unity of the two states of the American nation: to be able to stick to their legitimate interests to avoid war and be able to defend their interests by war [37]. The enactment of the US National Security in 1947 contributed to the growth of interest in national security issues on behalf of the scientific community, making it one of the key themes of Political Studies of the twentieth century.

A significant impact on the development of theoretical ideas about national security was the idea of national values and interests, and the concept of national power, developed in Japan in the 1980s. According to this concept, the national strength of each state can be represented as an integral indicator of the three components [30, 39]: a) the ability to contribute to the international community, b) ability to survive in crisis and extreme conditions using internal resources (e.g. natural, human, economic, cultural military), and c) the ability to promote national interests by using diplomatic tools and levers of power pressure. Despite the close relationship between the concepts of national security and national strength, they should not be equated. As rightly pointed out by Senchagov, the amount of national strength is largely defined by a foreign assessment of the situation and the role of the state in the world, while national security – an internal representation of the state’s ability to overcome potential threats [30]. Yet, their mutual influence on each other is undoubtable.

According to Ulitin, there are two main approaches to national security: political realism and liberal [37]. The first approach is characterized by consideration of the national security through the prism of national interests, the leading role in defining and ensuring of which is assigned to the state. National security from the perspective of neo-realism is the ability of the state, as a type of an integrated system, to protect its national interests from external and internal threats. A striking example are the United States, where the state is the main instrument for the protection of the values of a single nation – the American people [7]. The differences of the second approach is movement to the forefront of the human rights and freedoms, the protection of which is the main purpose of the functioning of the state. From this point of view, national security at the level of the state and society loses its paramount importance and is regarded as a precondition for the safety of individuals. Internationally, the basis of national security is the balance of the interests of states (as opposed to the force approach).

In general, the system of national security is a holistic, multi-level, multi-component, and open system, the main backbone element of which are the values of a wide range of social communities. National security is implemented in various spheres, the composition and amount of which can vary [6, 12, 40] (Figure 2a), and be represented at various hierarchical levels [5] (Figure 2b).

Figure 2. The structural organization of the national security system
2.2. Regional Security

Significant element of the organizational structure of the national security is expressed in regional security [9, 22, 34]. Depending on the hierarchical level of the region, the concept of regional security can be used to refer to one of two political dimensions: foreign and domestic. In this paper, we will consider the domestic (i.e. internal) regional security. Analysis of a number of scientific studies on relevant topics (e.g. see publications of M. Kazakov, I. Yurchenko, V. Strelchenko, A. Kiryanov, A. Bashkunov, M. Vakhaev, V. Solonina, S. Kutilin, N. Fokin, P. Baranov, and others) enable to determine the regional security from several perspectives: a) subsystem of national security; b) comprehensive institution, which includes elements of the economic, social, political, legal, environmental, informational and other fields; c) state of protection of vital and fundamental interests of the country in the implementation of regional policy, as well as the interests of the regional community and state institutions against a combination of external and internal threats; d) ability of public authorities to ensure the sustainable development of the region, balancing regional and national interests; e) set of internal and external conditions for sustainable reproduction of social processes in the region.

It is necessary to distinguish the concept of regional security and security of the region, as they describe different objects. According to Kiryanov [10], in the first case, the object is a range of social relations on the implementation of regional policy, in the second – a specific region. While these types of security are highly interconnected. Security of a region can be regarded as a derivative of regional policy, and, consequently, of the regional security [2]. In turn, regional security plays a crucial role for the formation of a security of a region and the establishment of a balance of interests of the center and the periphery.

The region’s role in regional security is defined by its features as of a socio-political entity. The essence of the social nature is expressed in the representation of the region as a kind of social community of people characterized by a certain degree of isolation. In politico-legal sense region is an institute, the container of political subjectivity, endowed with a certain level of political independence in selecting the development goals. Significant role in addressing the security issues is being played by regional elites – the most active part of the social community in the region, expressing their needs and interests [24].

Regional security, as well as national, is a complex system, which consists of the following elements [1]:

•  objects of tangible and intangible nature (the vital interests of the individual, society, state);

•  subjects that ensure security (bodies of the three branches of government – legislative, executive, judicial; state, public and other specialized formal and informal organizations and / or associations of citizens, social institutions);

•  subject, goals, objectives of regional security;

•  a set of special methods and means to ensure security.

The structure of the system of regional security is multi-level and multicomponent. The presence of one or another of its subsystems is not fixed and is determined by the peculiarities of the state structure and individual research objectives. For example, Polosin examines five main components of the regional security system: theoretical-methodological, regulatory-legal, communicational, institutional, and functional [24]. Kiryanov, in addition to the legal, institutional and informational subsystems has added an economic one [10]. One of the most significant in the regional security system is the institutional subsystem, within which can be allocated formal and informal components [34]. The first – formal component, includes the state institutions involved in the adoption and implementation of policy decisions on regional security issues, the second includes a variety of non-governmental organizations and associations, media, active citizens, etc., involved in the process of regional security. Formation of the formal part of the institutional subsystem of a specific region can happen in two directions [24]: firstly, top-down, through the establishment of agencies with federal status on its territory, which are adequately empowered and / or are isolations of structural divisions of the federal government; secondly, the bottom-up, through the formation of independent organizations and institutions of regional security by the regional authorities.

At the heart of the structural organization of the system of regional security is a hierarchical principle that, according to Baranov, consists of four subsystems [1]: a basic federal, territorial, functional, and primary (i.e. subjective). A similar approach is adopted by [10, 24]. Thus, in general terms there can be identified four structural levels of regional security: federal, interregional, regional, and municipal. In each of the structural levels, the implementation of regional policy is being carried out in the context of a whole range of areas of public life: political, economic (e.g. food, technology, energy, industry, etc.), social, community (e.g. fire, hydrometeorology, transport, etc.), environmental, informational, scientific and technological, innovation, cultural, spiritual, and others.

Particularities in development of a system of regional security of a specific region are defined by the influence of a particular set of internal and external factors, the most significant of which are [3, 13]: geographical and geopolitical features of economic activities; the development level and nature of the socio-economic sphere; specific interests of social and territorial communities, being established on its territory under the influence of cultural, historical, natural and other factors; the level of conflict between the region and other subjects’ interests (e.g. the federal government, other regions, the international community, etc.).

3. National Security System of Russia

The beginning of the formation of the legal framework in the area of national security of the Russian Federation is the adoption in 1992 of the law “On security”, which reveals the essence of such concepts as security, vital interests, subject and object of security, security threat [19]. According to the law, the security of the Russian Federation is determined by the state of protection of its vital interests against internal and external threats. The vital interests are understood as a complex of needs, the satisfaction of which does not only ensure the existence but also the progressive development of the state. Additionally, a three-level representation of the object of security is introduced: the first level – individual rights and freedoms; second level – material and spiritual values of society; third level – the constitutional order, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the state. This law also mentions different types of security: state, economic, social, defensive, informational, environmental, and other, but hereinafter the essence of their detailed differentiation wall not be disclosed.

In 1997, the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation approved the “The Concept of National Security of the Russian Federation”, which fixed the definition of national security of Russia on the legislative level as “security of its multinational people – the holder of its sovereignty and the only source of power in the Russian Federation” and national interests as set of long-term balanced interests of the individual, society and the state in different areas: the economic, political, social, spiritual, international, informational, military, border-line and environmental [18]. The strategic document recognized the importance of sustainable development of the Russian economy as a prerequisite for the realization of national interests. Not the last role is assigned to strengthen the scientific, technical and technological capacity, affecting the competitiveness of the national economy, standard of living and the country’s defensive strength.

At the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century, the basic documents in the field of national security of Russia were updated. In 2010 came into force a new law “On security” [20], according to which the concept of security and national security are considered as synonymous. Earlier in 2009, the “National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation until 2020” came into force, fixing the definition of national security on the legislative level. It is defined as “a state [i.e. condition] of security of individuals, society and the state from internal and external threats, allowing to ensure the constitutional rights, freedoms, decent quality and level of citizens’ lives, sovereignty, territorial integrity and sustainable development of the Russian Federation, the defense and security of the state” [35].

Despite the adoption of new legislation, the question of systematization and disclosure of various types of security remained unsolved. In [20, 35] as well as in a number of other existing laws of the Russian Federation can be met mention of military, defensive, chemical, biological, nuclear, radiation, international, economic, environmental, food, technological, energy, governmental, public, fire, hydrometeorological, industrial, transportation, informational, and other kinds of national security. However, their inter-subordination is not legally clarified.

Possibly one of the most blurred concepts is economic security, the mention of which can be found in a number of laws of the 1990s [19, 21, 32]. The concept of economic security was described only once, in the Federal Law “On State Regulation of Foreign Trade” of 1995, which is no longer valid. It was defined as a “state of the economy, ensuring an adequate level of social, political and defense existence and progressive development of the Russian Federation, invulnerability and independence of its economic interests in relation to potential external and internal threats and impacts” [[21], p. 2]. Subsequently, the official definition of economic security in the legal documents was neglected. In the State Strategy for the economic security of the Russian Federation from 1996 [32], economic security was determined indirectly through a set of threats.

Analysis of the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation until 2020 [35] shows the prevalence of the economic component over others, suggesting that economic security is fundamental for the national security and its other components. A similar conclusion can be drawn from generalizing the approach of Russian scientists to economic security (e.g. see O. Belkov, L. Abalkin, S. Naboychenko, Yu. Vladimirov, V. Senchagov, S. Fedoraev, M. Listopad, G. Vechkanov, L. Falinskiy, S. Kazantsev and others). In the course of research, we have allocated a whole range of aspects of economic security, closely intertwined with other types of security (e.g. social, political, cultural, spiritual, environmental, etc.), namely:

a) the social aspects, affecting the quality and standard of living, employment, degree of development of the social sphere (e.g. education, health, etc.);

b) the political aspects, related to ensuring the rational, efficient governance, contributing to the achievement of the priority objectives of the development and implementation of national interests;

c) the environmental aspects, ensure a balance between economic interests and environmental protection;

d) aspects of foreign policy and defense, including the preservation of the integrity of the country and its sovereignty (incl. economic sovereignty), growth of economic potential, enhancing international prestige, maintaining defense capabilities and military-political stability, maintenance of customs security;

e) innovative and S&T aspects, affecting the modernization and technological re-equipment, production and technological safety of industrial production, the development and introduction of advanced equipment, technologies and innovation in the economy, increasing competitiveness in the international arena;

f) the cultural and spiritual aspects, to overcome problems in the cultural sphere and the expanded reproduction of spiritual benefits.

The fundamental role in national economic security is also reflected in a set of objectives that must be achieved in the course of its provision. The following key ones shall be highlighted:

a) at the national level (i.e. country level):

•  dynamic, efficient, sustainable and progressive development of the national economy;

•  stability, constant updating and self-improvement of socio-economic system;

•  guaranteed protection of national interests and neutralization of potential sources of threats;

•  timely elimination or minimization of damage from the impact of negative external and internal factors;

b) at the regional level:

•  increase in the rate of economic growth;

•  efficient use of natural, human, financial, intangible and other resources;

•  performance improvement of regional production, improvement of the quality of products and services produced in the region;

•  de-monopolization, the development of market competition and increasing the competitiveness of businesses;

•  ensuring socio-economic and political stability, improving the quality of life of the population of the region;

•  development of inter-regional economic relations;

protection of the regions’ territory, its population, resources, the natural world, etc. from the negative impact of other states.

4. The Role of Regions in Ensuring National Security

Economic security can be seen as an example showing that national security focuses more on strategic planning at the national level and the issues of geopolitical and foreign economic nature. While regional security is rather associated with the solution of tactical problems of regional development and the development of specific mechanisms for responding to external and internal threats, being specific to each region. The notion of a region in the context of regional security can be referred to a subject of the Russian Federation, or the Federal District, or the territory, which unites several subjects on the basis of their common level of socio-economic development, national and cultural traditions and natural conditions (e.g. the Far East [9, 38]).

Formation of an effective system of regional security is of great importance for the national security of modern Russia, which is repeatedly stressed by the Russian scientists [24, 31, 33]. A vast territory of the country creates the preconditions for strengthening regional disparities, expressed in difference of subjects of the Russian Federation on a number of characters. They include [8, 24]: the climatic conditions of life and economic activities; availability of natural resources, including minerals; economic, geographical and geopolitical position; transport accessibility; demographic potential; the level of socio-economic development; cultural traditions; ethno-confessional structure; environmental conditions, etc. Deepening of the differences between regions leads to increased internal tensions in the country, which ultimately negatively affects national security.

Federal structure of the state has a significant potential to smooth out the imbalance in the development of the subjects of the Russian Federation and to remove the contradictions between the federal center and the regions through the expansion of political and economic independence of the latter. Based on the current law, the subject of the Russian Federation may participate in the national security in the following five aspects [24]: 1) as a space for realization of state policy on issues related to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Russian Federation; 2) as an object of public policy; 3) as the subject of ensuring regional security, endowed with certain powers in matters relating to the joint jurisdiction of the Russian Federation and the regions (in the socio-economic, demographic, food, informational, transport, environmental and other areas); 4) as the subject of a federal security policy, by participating in the formation of national security policy at the national level (through representation in the Federation Council) and subsequently facilitate the implementation of security measures at the regional level; and 5) as a source of challenges and threats to national security, hidden in interregional inequality.

Analyzing the pros and cons of the federal structure from the perspective of optimizing the system of national security of Russia, Koroleva identifies a number of advantages of federalism [11]: first, the ability to ensure the integrity and unity of the state, coupled with the complexity of a territorial structure; second, the opportunity for domestic and foreign policy levels to improve and strengthen national security; third, capacity to balance the interests at all hierarchical levels of national security. In addition, federalism implies a certain “self-sufficiency” of regions [31, 33] in realization of their inner potential through the development of external relations with other regions within the country and internationally.

However, the positive effect of federalism may be reduced or may not appear for several reasons, the main of which is insufficient differentiated approach to security in specific regions (e.g. of the border regions [3; 28]); strong polarization (the dictatorship of the federal government) and the imbalance in the center-periphery relations; the development of a self-perception of ‘exclusivity’ in some regions; lack of effective mechanisms for harmonization of vital interests at various levels of security and spheres of public life; significant differences in the legal status of the regions; lack of continuity between the regional and federal legislation, etc.

Legal ground of the regional security is implemented through legislations and regulations at the federal, regional and municipal levels. According to Melnikov [16], the Russian system of legal and organizational support of regional security can be represented as a set of three components (Figure 3).

Figure 3. The system of legal and administrative support of regional security in Russia

The credentials of state and local government entities of the Russian Federation in the field of national security, including in the regional aspect, are determined by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, federal constitutional and federal laws of the Russian Federation, presidential decrees, resolutions of the Government of the Russian Federation, regulations of the relevant ministries and departments, subordinate regulations (e.g. federal and regional concepts, strategies and target programs, doctrines, etc.), laws and other legal acts of the Russian Federation, regulations of local governments.

5. Conclusion

Analysis of Russian legislation in the field of regional security, as well as scientific publications on this subject (e.g. see V. Melnikov, A. Polosin, P. Pashkovskiy, A. Kiryanov, P. Baranov, M. Vahaev, V. Senchagov, I. Novokova and others) reveal a number of weaknesses that reduce the overall effectiveness of the security system of Russian regions.

Firstly, the lack of legal and institutional consolidation of the term “regional security”, the use of synonymous concepts in the legislation and regulations, such as “regional dimension of national security”, which reinforces the terminological uncertainty.

Secondly, the lack of an integrated approach to the development of legislation in the field of regional security on all three levels: federal, regional, municipal, including the already approved concepts of the federal and regional security. To date, individual subjects of the Russian Federation are generally implementing the provision of individual types of regional security in the form of independent initiatives.

Thirdly, strong intradepartmental focus, which is both a consequence and a cause of fragmentation and lack of continuity of legislation in the field of regional security, including regarding the issue of the formation of an integrated system and levels of security and legislative recognition of their legal and organizational content. In this context, the abolition of the Ministry of Regional Development in 2014 may be considered as an additional negative factor contributing to the strengthening of fragmented decision-making in the field of regional policy.

Fourthly, an unclear delineation of powers between the state authorities of the Russian Federation and the subjects of the Russian Federation, the contradictions in the already adopted legislation (e.g. articles 11 and 12 of the 2010 Federal Law “On safety” contradicts the Constitution and article 5 of the same federal law [38]).

Fifthly, the lack of a common and fixed methodology at the legislative level for assessing both national and regional security. A number of scholars have developed various approaches that could form the basis of a formal methodology for monitoring the level of security in the context of different hierarchical levels and spheres of public life. For example, much experience gained in assessing the economic security of the country and its regions. According to Tretyakov [36], there are at least six different methodological approaches to the assessment of the level of economic security: a) dynamic (i.e. estimate of changes in the main macroeconomic indicators); b) econometric (i.e. use of multivariate statistical analysis); c) macroeconomic (i.e. comparison of actual values of macroeconomic indicators and their thresholds); d) expert rating (i.e. rating, scoring or an expert assessment of economic security and threats); d) economic and mathematical (i.e. impact assessment of threats by quantifying the expected amount of damage); and e) a complex method (i.e. combination of different methods).

Summarizing the study on national security and the region’s role in its maintenance, we can conclude that the regional level has always been an important part of the security of the Russian Federation, the place of intertwined interests of the federal center and individual territorial social communities. Changes taking place in the modern world, as mentioned earlier, led to a situation where the formation of an effective system of regional security is an objective requirement of time and the basis for the successful development of the state. Unfortunately, the role of regional security at the federal level is still underestimated in the Russian Federation, although some steps are being made in this direction. The existing need to ensure regional security is partially satisfied by the regions themselves through the development and adoption of laws and regulations aimed at addressing the most pressing problems, countering the most probable threats and challenges. However, the lack of a systematic approach by the federal government reduces the overall efficiency of the implemented solutions in this area.


[1]  Baranov, P.P., “Legal and organizational safeguards to ensure regional security in the Rostov region”, Yurist-Pravoved, 5 (66), 2014. 16-20.
In article      
[2]  Bashkunov, A., Socio-political security of regions as a factor of national security of modern Russia. Orel, 2009. 24 p.
In article      
[3]  Beydina, T.E., “Conflict factor impeding the management system of regional security in the Trans-Baikal region”, Herald of the Trans-Baikal State University, 2 (105), 2014. 53-62.
In article      
[4]  Bondarenko, M.V., “Security as a social category: the formation of categorical-conceptual apparatus”, Science and Practice, 4 (45), 2010. 18-20.
In article      
[5]  Burkin, A.I., Vozzhenikov, A.V., Sineok, N.V., Russian national security. Moscow, Publishing House of RAGS, 2008. 478 p.
In article      
[6]  Fedoraev, S.V., “On the definition of the concept of “economic security of the country” as a scientific term”, Vestnik St. Petersburg University of Ministry for Emergency Situations of Russia, 2, 2009. 89-96.
In article      
[7]  Fomin, S.A., National security. Lectures. Moscow, Flint. 2007. 224 p.
In article      PubMed
[8]  Gorlanov, G.V., Syrovetsky, A.Y., “Regional aspect of national security of Russia”, Sociology of power, 3, 2007. 50-59.
In article      
[9]  Kazakova, M.N., “Regional aspects of Russia's national security: domestic political dimension”, Historical, philosophical, political and legal sciences, cultural studies and art history. Theory and Practice, 8 (14), 2011. 82-85.
In article      
[10]  Kiryanov, A.Y., Regional security in today's Russia (general legal analysis). Nizhny Novgorod, 2006. 23 p.
In article      
[11]  Koroleva, Y.M., “Russian federalism as a factor in the formation of national security”, Power, 3, 2010. 54-55.
In article      
[12]  Kosenko, V.P., Boyko, A.P., “Economic Security of the Russian Federation and customs policy: status, problems and directions of their solutions”, Bulletin of the Russian Customs Academy, 1(2), 2008. 25-34.
In article      
[13]  Kutilin, S.A., “Regional security of the North Caucasus as a subsystem of Russia's national security: political science aspect”, Vestn. Volgogr. state. Univ, 2 (18), 2010. 155-158.
In article      
[14]  Liga, M.B., Pavlova, N.S., Shchetkina, I.A., Social Security of Youth: organizational - management support. Moscow, The Academy of Natural Sciences, 2012.
In article      
[15]  Listopad, M.E., “Evolution of ideas about economic security”, Theory and practice of social development, 3, 2011. [Online]. Available: [Accessed Feb. 10, 2015]
In article      
[16]  Melnikov, V.I., Role of regional security in the national system of ensuring the national security of the Russian Federation. Moscow, The Federation Council. 2010.
In article      
[17]  Napalkova, I.G., Economic security: the legal and institutional analysis: a monograph. Rostov-on-Don, SKNTS HS, 2006. 148 p.
In article      
[18]  National Security Concept of the Russian Federation, approved by Presidential Decree of 17 December 1997 № 1300 (as amended. On January 10, 2000, has become invalid in accordance with Presidential Decree dated May 12, 2009 № 537)
In article      
[19]  On security, The Federal Law № 2446-1, approved March 5, 1992 (rev. And ext. (As amended on December 25, 1992 December 24, 1993 and July 25, 2002, March 7, 2005, July 25, 2006, March 2, 2007)
In article      
[20]  On security, The Federal Law № 390-FZ, approved December 28, 2010.
In article      
[21]  On state regulation of foreign trade, The Federal Law of 13.10.1995, № 157-FZ (in red. from 08.07.97 № 96-FZ, of 10.02.99 № 32-FZ)
In article      
[22]  Paszkowski, P.V., “Political and Legal Framework of regional security of Russia: Problems and Strategies”, Philosophy of Law, 6, 2008. 118-120.
In article      
[23]  Pavlenko, S.Z., Security of the Russian state as a political issue. Moscow, Sciences. 1998. 60 p.
In article      
[24]  Polosin, A.V., “Regional dimension of the national security of the Russian Federation”, Army and Society, 4 (20), 2009. 42-47.
In article      
[25]  Pozdnyakov, A.I., System of the basic concepts of the theory of national security from the standpoint of values (axiological) approach. Russia's security in the twenty-first century. Moscow, RIC ISPR, 2006.
In article      
[26]  Prohozheva, A.A., The general theory of national security: the textbook. (2nd ed). Moscow, RAGS, 2005. 344 p.
In article      
[27]  Prudius, E.V., “On the concept and system of economic security”, Business-in-law. Economics and Law Journal, 1, 2008. 66-70.
In article      
[28]  Rodachin, V.M., “Russia's national interests and their protection in the border area”, Law and Security, 3-4 (8-9), 2003. 6-13.
In article      
[29]  Sapronov, V.E., State in the national security of Russia: In A.G. Khabibullina (eds.) State (republic) within the Russian Federation: theoretical and methodological and legal aspects. Monograph. St. Petersburg, The St. Petersburg. Univ of the Russian Interior Ministry, 2001.
In article      
[30]  Senchagov, V.K., Economic security: geopolitics, globalization, self-preservation and development (Book Four). Moscow, ZAO “Finstatinform”, 2002. 128 p.
In article      
[31]  Sherstyankina, T., Self-sufficient region as a factor in Russia's national security in the context of globalization: the case of the Trans-Baikal region. Chita, 2010. 129 p.
In article      
[32]  State strategy of economic security of the Russian Federation, approved by Presidential Decree of 29 April 1996, № 608.
In article      
[33]  Strelchenko, V.V., “Regional security in the national security of Russia”, Sociology of power, 1, 2010. 110-119.
In article      
[34]  Strelchenko, V.V., Regional Security in the Russian Federation: theory, policy and strategy to ensure. Moscow, 2010. 50 p.
In article      
[35]  The National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation until 2020, approved Presidential Decree of May 12, 2009, № 537.
In article      
[36]  Tretyakov, D.V., Organizational and methodological tools to ensure the economic security of the region. Tambov, 2012. 22 p.
In article      PubMed
[37]  Ulitin, R.R., “Value concepts of “national interest” and “national security” in the works of Western and Russian researchers”, Bulletin of the Nizhny Novgorod University, 1, 2003.129-137.
In article      
[38]  Vakhaev, M.H., Alekseev, S.V., “Problems of Regulatory regional security of the Russian Federation”, Law and Security, 1 (38), 2011. 92-97.
In article      
[39]  Vechkanov, G.S., Economic security: a textbook for high schools. St. Petersburg, Peter, 2007. 384 p.
In article      
[40]  Zagrebnev, S.A., “Regional security in the national security of the Russian Federation”, Power, 10, 2010. 90-92.
In article      
[41]  Zelenkov, M. Yu., Theoretical and methodological problems of the theory of the national security of the Russian Federation: a monograph. Moscow, Law School of the MIIT, 2013. 196 p.
In article      
  • CiteULikeCiteULike
  • MendeleyMendeley
  • StumbleUponStumbleUpon
  • Add to DeliciousDelicious
  • FacebookFacebook
  • TwitterTwitter
  • LinkedInLinkedIn