ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY AND STATE RESPONSIBILITY: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF UZBEKISTAN, THE UNITED STATES, AND THE EUROPEAN UNION

Abstract

The question of when and how the state can be held liable for harm caused by its administrative actions is one of the most fundamental in public law. This article examines the doctrines of administrative liability and state responsibility in Uzbekistan, the United States, and the European Union — three systems that reflect significantly different assumptions about the relationship between citizen and state, the proper scope of governmental immunity, and the institutional mechanisms through which accountability is enforced. The United States federal system relies on the Federal Tort Claims Act and the doctrine of sovereign immunity, with significant gaps in coverage. The European Union has developed a sophisticated state liability doctrine through the Court of Justice's Francovich jurisprudence, requiring member states to compensate individuals for losses caused by breaches of EU law. Uzbekistan's administrative liability framework, grounded in the Code of Administrative Responsibility, has been progressively reformed since 2017 but still reflects the legacy of a system designed primarily to impose liability on citizens rather than on the state. The article identifies the principal gaps in Uzbekistan's current framework and offers reform recommendations informed by comparative analysis.