The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
34
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
TYPE
Original Research
PAGE NO.
34-40
10.37547/tajpslc/Volume07Issue07-07
OPEN ACCESS
SUBMITED
18 May 2025
ACCEPTED
14 June 2025
PUBLISHED
16 July 2025
VOLUME
Vol.07 Issue07 2025
CITATION
Salieva Shakhsanem Usnatdinovna. (2025). The concept and types of state
control in public services delivery. The American Journal of Political Science
Law and Criminology, 7(07), 34
–
40.
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume07Issue07-07
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.
The concept and types of
state control in public
services delivery
Salieva Shakhsanem Usnatdinovna
Independent Researcher, University of Public Security of the Republic of
Uzbekistan
Abstract:
This article analyzes the organizational and
legal mechanisms for ensuring legality and discipline in
the provision of public services in Uzbekistan.
It examines various forms of control (parliamentary,
judicial, presidential, governmental, and departmental)
and their impact on the quality of public services. Key
challenges identified include the absence of
comprehensive
legislation
and
the
ineffective
application of the Law “On Administrative Procedures”.
It offers recommendations for improving the regulatory
framework and control practices to enhance the
transparency and efficiency of the public service system.
Keywords:
Public
services,
control,
legality,
administrative procedures, digitalization, benchmark.
Introduction:
The quality and volume of public services,
along with continuous improvement in international
rankings and indices within the “e
-
Gov” sphere
(including public services delivery), significantly depend
on organizational and legal mechanisms that ensure
legality and state discipline.
This organizational and legal mechanism represents a
comprehensive set of measures. These include
normative legal regulation, continuous monitoring,
control, supervision, prevention, prophylaxis, and
accountability enforcement. The mechanism aims to
guarantee compliance with established legal norms,
high quality standards, and transparency in public
service delivery processes. Essentially, it’s
a system of
measures designed to uphold legislative norms and
maintain order in the performance of the
aforementioned functions. This framework involves the
development and implementation of normative legal
acts, the organization of a control and oversight system
for government bodies and officials, and the creation of
procedures and tools for appealing actions or decisions
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
35
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
that may infringe on citizens’ rights.
According
to
L.
Beschastnova,
three
main
organizational and legal methods for ensuring legality
and state discipline in the activities of entities
providing public services under administrative and
legal regulation have emerged:
State control;
State supervision;
State control and supervisory activities.
L. Beschastnova clarifies that state control by executive
bodies over the proper provision of public services
encompasses
comprehensive
presidential
and
governmental control, as well as sectoral functional
control by federal ministries and agencies at the
federal level. At the level of the constituent entities of
the Russian Federation, it includes gubernatorial and
governmental control, along with functional intra-
industry control by ministries and agencies [1].
Furthermore, scientific literature emphasizes that
control and supervisory activity represents a system of
interaction between controlling and controlled
entities, aimed at ensuring compliance with state-
established norms and requirements. As O. Minchenko
notes, the key goal of this process is protecting public
interests, which defines its socio-legal significance. In
this context, society is the primary beneficiary of
control and supervisory functions, as their
implementation contributes to maintaining law and
order, minimizing risks, and ensuring legality in
regulated areas [2]. Regarding the initiative for
interaction, the author points out its dependence on
the specifics of the control and supervisory function. In
most cases, the initiative comes from the controlling
div (e.g., during scheduled inspections). However,
within "permissive and licensing procedures," the
initiative typically belongs to the controlled entity,
which applies to the authorized div for the relevant
permission or license. Thus, the nature of interaction
varies depending on the type of control and
supervisory function, requiring a differentiated
approach to their regulation and analysis [2].
S. Shaidurov offers an interesting perspective, noting
that the nature of control and supervision activities
indicates that the controlling (supervising) div
initiates the relationship; the reasons and goals for the
controlling (supervising) div's initiative are to
prevent negative phenomena or react to negative
phenomena
or
complaints;
the
controlling
(supervising) div possesses relevant authoritative
powers, while the controlled (supervised) party
complies; the controlling div can bring the controlled
(supervised) person to accountability in cases
established by law. Legal relations in control and
supervision are formalized into a procedural form,
potentially leading to the issuance of a law enforcement
act. Control and supervision are carried out by specially
authorized state bodies. Controlled entities include not
only organizations and citizens but also state and
municipal bodies [3].
E.G. Babelyuk stresses the importance of clearly
delineating the functions of state control and tasks
related to service provision [4]. In her opinion, such a
separation is necessary because, within control and
supervisory activities, state bodies focus on verifying
compliance with established norms and rules. At the
same time, when providing services, their primary goal
is to facilitate citizens' exercise of their legal rights [4].
The aforementioned positions of researchers are
significant for understanding state control mechanisms
and can serve as a theoretical basis for further research
in administrative law and public administration.
However, in our opinion, in addition to the established
organizational and legal methods of ensuring legality
and state discipline in the activities of entities providing
public services in the field of administrative and legal
regulation, we can identify parliamentary, judicial,
presidential, governmental control, and control by an
authorized state div. Let's delve into each of these
functions separately.
METHODOLOGY
This study employs a descriptive and analytical
methodology to examine the organizational and legal
mechanisms of state control in public service provision.
The research draws upon a comprehensive review of
academic literature from leading scholars in
administrative law and public administration, alongside
an in-depth analysis of the Constitution, laws, and
presidential decrees of the Republic of Uzbekistan.
Furthermore, the study incorporates a comparative
element by referencing the CIS Model Law “On Sta
te
and Municipal Services” to identify best practices and
potential directions for legislative reform. The findings
are based on qualitative analysis of legal norms and
expert opinions regarding the practical implementation
of control functions.
RESULTS
Parliamentary Control
Parliamentary control in public services delivery is a
mechanism by which the parliament oversees the
government’s provision of public services to the
population. According to Article 4 of the Law of the
Republic of Uzbekistan
“On Parliamentary Control” the object of parliamentary
control is the activities of state bodies and their officials
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
36
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
in implementing the Constitution and laws of the
Republic of Uzbekistan, decisions of the chambers of
the Oliy Majlis of the Republic of Uzbekistan and their
bodies, state programs, and in fulfilling their assigned
tasks and functions. The object of parliamentary
control cannot be activities related to the
consideration of specific cases and materials in the
proceedings of bodies engaged in operational-
investigative activities, inquiry and investigation,
courts, as well as materials of enforcement
proceedings and notary office work.
It is noteworthy that issues of improving and
transforming “e
-
Gov”, enhancing the quality and
effectiveness of public services, and introducing
mechanisms for public control have been priority tasks
from the Action Strategy (2017) to the “Uzbekistan
-
2030” Strategy (2023), with annual goals in the State
Program to achieve better results in this area.
Jakhongir Shirinov, Chairman of the Committee on
Combating Corruption and Judicial-Legal Issues of the
Legislative Chamber of the Oliy Majlis of the Republic
of Uzbekistan, emphasizes that parliamentary control
is one of his Committee's strategic areas. During the
reporting period, over twenty control and analytical
measures were conducted to monitor and assess the
implementation of legislation in various sectors [5].
Particular attention was paid to analyzing the practical
implementation of anti-corruption norms in key areas,
including field research events. Several hearings were
organized, during which the Minister of Justice, among
others, presented his report. Following these hearings,
the Committee made specific decisions aimed at
improving the fight against corruption in management
systems, developing the digitalization of public
services, and improving other important areas [5].
Furthermore, H. Khotamov, General Legal Counsel of
the Secretariat of the Senate Committee on Judicial-
Legal Issues and Combating Corruption, highlights that
the Senate's experience in recent years shows that, on
average, the Senate annually develops over 10 draft
laws on issues identified through parliamentary
control and dialogue with the people, which are then
submitted to bodies with the right of legislative
initiative [6]. We agree with I. Alebastrova, who states:
“the most important condition for the effectiveness of
parliamentary control is real multi-partyism, creating
an environment of political competition, that is, an
open and peaceful struggle for mastering the
mechanisms of public power. Only in such an
environment can a strong motivation for criticizing the
government and controlling its activities arise” [7].
Judicial Control
Judicial control in the sphere of public services delivery
plays a crucial role in ensuring the legality, fairness, and
effectiveness of executive bodies’ work. Its primary goal
is to protect the rights and freedoms of citizens and
organizations from unlawful actions or inactions by
state bodies and their officials in the process of
providing such services.
Uzbekistan has established a robust institutional and
regulatory framework for judicial protection of citizens’
rights and freedoms. According to Article 130 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Uzbekistan, justice in the
Republic of Uzbekistan is administered solely by the
court. The judicial power in the Republic of Uzbekistan
operates independently of legislative and executive
powers, political parties, and other civil society
institutions [8].
However, we must agree with Professor I. Khamedov:
“The situation where an existing law, designed to
radically improve the position of interested parties in
relations with administrative bodies, namely the Law
“On Administrative Procedures”, is totally une
nforced
by administrative bodies and rarely applied even by
administrative courts, is completely unacceptable.
Meanwhile, administrative courts were specifically
called upon to ensure the enforcement of the Law
“On Administrative Procedures” by compelling
administrative
bodies
to
comply
with
new
administrative procedures. However, administrative
courts are not yet coping with their task, largely due to
the general institutional weaknesses of the domestic
judicial system” [8].
Presidential and Governmental Control
We agree with L. Beschastnova that state control by
executive bodies over the proper public services
delivery includes comprehensive presidential and
governmental control.
According to Article 105 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Uzbekistan,
“The President of the Republic
of Uzbekistan is the head of state and ensures the
coordinated functioning and interaction of state
authorities”. Article 110 states: “The President of the
Republic of Uzbekistan, based on and in execution of the
Constitution and laws of the Republic of Uzbekistan,
issues decrees, resolutions, and orders that are binding
throughout the republic” [9].
To create an effective system for organizing and
monitoring the implementation of legislative acts and to
strengthen the personal responsibility of heads of the
Cabinet of Ministers, state administration bodies, and
regional hokims for achieving the goals outlined in the
President’s Address to the Oliy Majlis on December 29,
2020, as well as sectoral and regional development
programs approved in 2016-2021, the President signed
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
37
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
Decree “On additional measures to strengthen the
personal responsibility of heads of state administration
bodies and local executive authorities for the effective
organization of the implementation of legislat
ive acts”
No. UP-6166 on February 10, 2021 [10]. This decree
introduced a Unified System of Organizational,
Executive, and Control Activities to ensure prompt and
operational measures for the thorough development
and adoption of legislative acts and directives, their
timely dissemination to specific executors, the wider
public, and the population, and the deepening of
economic and social reforms, as well as the effective
implementation of current, medium-term, and long-
term tasks.
According to paragraph 7 of this Decree, the Ministry
of Justice was assigned additional tasks: conducting
targeted and thematic analytical studies and
monitoring the state of affairs at the local level across
industries, regions, and agencies to ensure timely, full,
and high-quality implementation of legislative acts and
directives, including jointly with the Accounts
Chamber; organizing and further accelerating work on
coverage and discussion in mass media and social
networks; developing proposals for identifying
problems and factors hindering the practical
implementation of legislative acts and directives,
reducing tasks and functions not inherent to the
sphere, avoiding duplication, and preventing excessive
bureaucracy and meetings; providing legal and
methodological assistance to state bodies and
organizations in implementing legislative acts and
directives, participating in training on executive
discipline for heads of their respective departments.
In accordance with paragraph 8 of this Decree, a
completely new system for controlling the
implementation of legislative acts and directives was
introduced through the “Ijro.gov.uz” system, which
involves the Ministry of Justice: controlling the timely
implementation of legislative acts and directives
through the “Ijro.gov.uz” system
and managing the
“Ijro.gov.uz” system itself; entering directives taken
under control into the “Ijro.gov.uz” system, based on
these directives
–
identifying responsible executors
and deadlines, verifying the completeness and
accuracy of the data entered, and studying the
reasonableness
of
proposals
to
extend
implementation deadlines established in legislative
acts and directives; monthly submitting information on
the status of implementation of legislative acts and
directives to the Administration of the President of the
Republic of Uzbekistan and the Cabinet of Ministers
[10]. It is stipulated that untimely entry of necessary
data into the “Ijro.gov.uz” system or entry of
inaccurate information to ensure the implementation
of legislative acts and directives, as well as untimely or
improper execution of instructions from the Ministry of
Justice, shall serve as grounds for disciplinary,
administrative, and other liability in accordance with
legislation.
According to Article 115 of the Constitution of the
Republic of Uzbekistan, the Cabinet of Ministers of the
Republic of Uzbekistan takes measures to ensure
openness and transparency, legality and effectiveness in
the work of executive bodies, combat corruption in their
activities, and improve the quality and accessibility of
public services [9]. The powers of the Cabinet of
Ministers in the sphere of information technology and
communications development include implementing
measures to expand the range of electronic public
services and telecommunication services by digitalizing
state functions and modernizing telecommunication
infrastructure.
Control by the Authorized State Body (Ministry of
Justice)
Notably, the Agency for Public Services under the
Ministry of Justice was abolished, and according to
paragraph 2 of the Decree of the President of the
Republic of Uzbekistan “On measures to further
increase the effectiveness of justice bodies and
institutions in ensuring the rights and freedoms of
citizens, as well as in providing legal services” No. UP
-89
of March 17, 2022, the Ministry of Justice was assigned
the following additional tasks in the sphere of public
services delivery:
- Implementation of a unified state policy in the sphere
of providing public services to individuals and legal
entities;
- Ensuring fast, convenient, and high-quality provision of
public
services
by
eliminating
unnecessary
administrative procedures;
Exercising control and assessing the effectiveness of
state bodies and other organizations in the sphere of
public services delivery, including the implementation
of relevant information systems, resources, and
databases [11].
Also, according to paragraph 9 of this Decree, the
Ministry of Justice and its territorial divisions are
granted additional powers to apply administrative
penalties to officials of state bodies and other
organizations for violating legislation in the sphere of
public services delivery [11].
Currently, in Uzbekistan, there is no single
comprehensive
normative
legal
act
that
comprehensively regulates the sphere of public service
provision. Although Decree No. UP-89 of March 17,
2022, granted powers to the Ministry of Justice of the
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
38
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
Republic of Uzbekistan, in practice, the Law “On
Electronic Government” which is a fundamental
normative document, does not define the status and
powers of the Ministry of Justice at the legislative level.
Furthermore, this Law has only been amended and
supplemented once in a single article, despite being
adopted in 2015. Additionally, there is no single
normative legal document that regulates all processes
related to public services delivery, monitoring, control,
and other powers of the authorized div.
Currently, justice bodies conduct inspections based on
administrative regulations regarding violations of
legislation in the sphere of public service provision,
such as refusal to accept an applicant's appeal,
violation of the procedure and deadlines for
considering appeals in public service provision,
demanding documents not provided for by law, non-
compliance with a legal requirement (instruction) of
the authorized state div in the sphere of public
services delivery. According to Article 2155 of the Code
on Administrative Responsibility of the Republic of
Uzbekistan, they draw up administrative protocols and
impose fines on officials and employees ranging from
three to five basic calculation units. The same offense,
committed repeatedly within a year after the
application of an administrative penalty, entails a fine
on officials and employees ranging from five to ten
basic calculation units [12].
Significant discussions are ongoing within the scientific
community regarding the expediency of adopting a
single Law that would regulate relations in the field of
public services delivery. However, some argue that the
Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan “On Ad
ministrative
Procedures” adopted in 2018 has not fully functioned
in practice. Furthermore, Article 1, Part 4 of the Model
Law
“On State and Municipal Services”, adopted by the
Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of the Member States of
the Commonwealth of Independent States on
October 28, 2022, No. 54-27, stipulates that relations
arising in connection with the implementation of
administrative procedures are regulated by special
national legislation [13]. This Model Law dedicates an
entire chapter to state and public control in the sphere
of public service provision, defining key principles such
as legality, objectivity, impartiality, reliability,
comprehensiveness, and transparency [13].
DISCUSSION
The analysis of organizational and legal mechanisms
for ensuring legality and state discipline in the
provision of public services in Uzbekistan reveals a
complex approach involving various forms of control
and supervision. The presented opinions of
researchers and the provisions of normative legal acts
allow for several important conclusions and points for
discussion.
Firstly, the multi-faceted nature of control functions is
evident. Beyond the traditional state control, state
supervision, and control and supervisory activities
identified by L. Beschastnova, the text highlights the
significance of parliamentary, judicial, presidential, and
governmental control, as well as control by the
authorized state div (Ministry of Justice). This reflects
a clear aspiration to establish a comprehensive system
covering all levels of public administration, indicating a
mature understanding of governance complexities.
Secondly, parliamentary control in Uzbekistan plays a
substantial role, evidenced by the active engagement of
the Committee on Combating Corruption and Judicial-
Legal Issues of the Legislative Chamber of the Oliy Majlis
and the legislative initiatives of the Senate. However,
the effectiveness of parliamentary oversight, as rightly
pointed out by I. Alebastrova, is fundamentally
contingent on the existence of genuine multipartyism
and political competition. This creates a vital
environment for constructive criticism and effective
monitoring of government activities, fostering
accountability.
Thirdly, judicial control is recognized as a pivotal
instrument for safeguarding citizens’ rights against
unlawful actions by state bodies. Despite a robust
institutional and normative legal framework at the
constitutional level, there are discernible challenges in
the pract
ical implementation of the Law “On
Administrative Procedures”. As noted by I. Khamidov,
these difficulties stem partly from “general institutional
weaknesses of the domestic judicial system”. This points
to a critical need for strengthening administrative
justice to fully empower it in its crucial role.
Fourthly, presidential and governmental control,
alongside the control exercised by the authorized state
div, constitute central pillars of the system. The
Presidential Decree No. UP-6166 of February 10, 2021,
which introduced the Unified System of Organizational,
Executive, and Control Activities via the “Ijro.gov.uz”
system, underscores a commitment to enhancing
personal accountability among leaders and digitalizing
execution processes. The Ministry of Justice has been
assigned
a
particularly
significant
role,
with
considerable delegated powers in control, monitoring,
and even applying administrative penalties in the public
service sector.
Fifthly, a significant challenge lies in the absence of a
single, comprehensive normative legal act that
comprehensively regulates the entire spectrum of
public service provision. While control functions are
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
39
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
vested in the Ministry of Justice, the foundational Law
“On Electronic Government” does not explicitly define
its status and powers in this domain at the legislative
level. This creates legal ambiguities and could impede
systematic regulation. While discussions persist
regarding the adoption of a unified law, with some
arguing that the existing Law
“On
Administrative
Procedures”
hasn’t
fully
materialized in practice, the CIS Model Law “On State
and Municipal Services” offers a valuable benchmark
for national legislative development, particularly with
its dedicated chapter on state and public control.
CONCLUSION
To further enhance the quality and volume of public
services, and to improve Uzbekistan’s position in
international rankings, it is imperative to continue
refining the organizational and legal mechanisms for
ensuring legality and state discipline. This will, in turn,
foster a more effective, transparent, and accountable
public services system, ultimately leading to an
improved quality of life for citizens and increased trust
in governmental bodies.
Key directions for further improvement include:
Legislative Systematization: Consider developing and
adopting a unified normative legal act that
comprehensively regulates all aspects of public service
provision,
including
control,
monitoring,
and
accountability mechanisms. This would ensure legal
clarity and address existing gaps.
Strengthening Judicial Control: Measures must be
taken to reinforce administrative justice, enabling
administrative courts to fully perform their function in
ensuring compliance with the Law “On Administrative
Procedures” and protecting citizens’ rights in public
service delivery.
Enhancing Parliamentary Oversight: For maximum
effectiveness of parliamentary control, it’s crucial to
further develop political competition and strengthen
civil society institutions that contribute to open and
constructive criticism of government activities.
Further Digitalization and Integration of Control
Mechanisms: The use of the “Ijro.gov.uz” system and
similar digital platforms should be expanded and
enhanced
to
improve
the
transparency,
responsiveness, and effectiveness of legislative
implementation and oversight of state bodies’
activities.
Clear Delineation of Functions: It is important to
continue working on a clear distinction between the
functions of state bodies in providing services and their
control and supervisory activities. This will help avoid
conflicts of interest and allow each function to focus on
its primary objectives.
Implementing these measures will foster a more
efficient, transparent, and accountable public service
delivery system, ultimately contributing to an improved
quality of life for citizens and greater trust in
government institutions.
REFERENCES
Beschastnova,
Liliana
Vladislavovna.
(2008).
Administrative and Legal Regulation of Public Services:
Extended Abstract of Cand. Sci. (Law) Dissertation.
Saratov. pp. 20-22.
Minchenko, O.S. (2013). Control and Supervisory
Functions and Public Services: Interrelation of Concepts.
Public Administration. Electronic Bulletin, (37).
Shaidurov, S.A. (2012). The Function of Public Services
Provision: Features and Place Among Other Functions of
State Executive Bodies. Journal of Russian Law, (9), 123.
Babelyuk, E.G. (2007). Problems of Delineating Activities
on Public Service Provision and State Control and
Supervisory Activities. In E.V. Gritsenko, N.A. Sheveleva
(Eds.), Public Services: Legal Regulation (Russian and
Foreign Experience): Collection of Articles (p. 64).
Moscow: Wolters Kluwer.
Shirinov, J. (2022). The Role of Parliament in Combating
Corruption. Uzbekistan Anti-Corruption Digest, 2(1), 17
–
21. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47689/uacd-2181-3345--
Khotamov, H. (n.d.). Senate Activity: Its Organizational
and
Legal
Forms.
Retrieved
from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368555494
_Senat_faoliati_uning_taskilij-ukukij_sakllari
(Accessed: July 15, 2025)
Alebastrova, I.A. (n.d.). Problems of Implementing the
Principle of Separation of Powers in the State
Mechanism of the Russian Federation. STUDIA I ANALIZY
/ SP, 33, 52.
Khamedov, I. (2023, February 17). The Quality of Public
Administration Cannot Be Improved Without Adhering
to Administrative Procedures. Gazeta.uz. Retrieved
from
https://www.gazeta.uz/ru/2023/02/17/reforms/
(Accessed: July 15, 2025)
Constitution of the Republic of Uzbekistan. (n.d.).
Retrieved from
https://lex.uz/docs/6445147#6447649
(Accessed: July 15, 2025)
Decree of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan,
No. UP-6166 of February 10, 2021. (n.d.). Retrieved
from
https://lex.uz/uz/docs/5279426
15, 2025)
Decree of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan,
No. UP-89 of March 17, 2022. (n.d.). Retrieved from
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
40
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
15, 2025)
Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Administrative
Responsibility.
(n.d.).
Retrieved
from
2025)
Model Law "On State and Municipal Services", October
28, 2022, No. 54-27. (n.d.). Retrieved from
