PECULIARITIES OF LEGAL REGULATION OF THE ORGANIZATION AND ACTIVITIES OF INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES OF THE REPUBLIC OF BELARUS AND UKRAINE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

In the article, on the basis of legal comparative studies, by comparing the legislative acts of the Republic of Belarus and Ukraine, the legal basis for regulating the organization and activities of intelligence agencies of two states is analyzed. Five features that distinguish the legislation of Belarus in the field of intelligence activities from the legislation of Ukraine are identified. The first feature is that, in contrast to Ukraine, in Belarus regulation of intelligence activities takes place in accordance with a presidential decree, not a law. The second peculiarity is connected with the absence in the Presidential Decree «On Foreign Intelligence Issues» of a normative definition of the main categories of intelligence activities. These are the principles of intelligence activities; legal basis of intelligence agencies; methods and means of intelligence agencies; communication of intelligence agencies with the public and the public; financing and logistics of intelligence agencies; control and supervision of intelligence agencies. The third feature is related to the tasks of foreign intelligence. The Belarusian legislator followed the example of the Russian legislator and identified them through the ways in which intelligence activities are carried out. In Ukrainian legislation, tasks for foreign intelligence are set specifically and broadly. Ukraine, having borrowed the positive international experience of the legislation of the leading countries of the world, has set for foreign intelligence, in addition to purely intelligence-oriented tasks, the tasks of combating terrorism and transnational organized crime, but only at the level of participation in the struggle. The fourth feature concerns the identification of consumers of intelligence information. Unlike Belarusian legislation, where the president of a state is an ordinary consumer of intelligence information, the role of the President of Ukraine as its main consumer is clearly defined in Ukrainian. According to the author, there is a certain practical sense in that the intelligence structure itself can sometimes, without the intervention of the president, determine the range of consumers of its extracted intelligence information. The fifth feature concerns the possibility of granting citizenship to persons cooperating with foreign intelligence agencies on a confidential basis under Belarusian legislation, which is not in the current legislation of Ukraine. It is concluded that after the scientific substantiation of the provisions of the legislation of Belarus, which deserve attention, they can be taken into account in the domestic legislative activity.