In anticipation of the tenth anniversary of the development of the professional ethics rules for cadastral engineers (hereinafter referred to as the «Rules») 3, the authors have attempted to assess the updated (4th) edition of this document, which was approved at the end of last year. The analysis was conducted not only from a formal perspective, but also from substantive, ethical, and practical viewpoints. The drafter of the Rules is the Association «National Association of Self‑Regulatory Organizations of Cadastral Engineers», a non‑profit organization whose members include more than 50 % of the country’s self‑regulatory organizations of cadastral engineers 1. It has been established that the fourth edition of the Rules demonstrates generally positive changes: enhanced client‑centricity, consolidation and clarification of scattered requirements, and the introduction of disciplinary liability for violations of ethical norms. At the same time, systemic shortcomings have been identified: rhetorical statements in the absence of mechanisms for resolving ethical conflicts, vague criteria for «harm to the reputation of a self‑regulatory organization (SRO)», the risk of using ethical norms to suppress criticism, insufficient attention to conflicts of interest between a cadastral engineer and their employer.
Dudnikov et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: