All
 
|
 
 


Interaction between judicial discretion and methods of interpretation in the case-law of courts of integration associations
 
PIIS102694520027269-6-1
DOI10.31857/S102694520027269-6
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Ekterina B. Diyachenko 
Occupation: Counselor of the Judge, Court of the Eurasian Economic Union; Senior Researcher of the International Law Sector, Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Affiliation:
Court of the Eurasian Economic Union
Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Address: Republic of Belarus, Minsk; Russian Federation Moscow
Journal nameGosudarstvo i pravo
EditionIssue 8
Pages133-141
Abstract

A key element of judicial activity appears to be judicial discretion, which is used to fill legal gaps in integration organisations. The exercise of judicial discretion leads to the formulation by an integration organization court of activist legal findings based on the interpretation of the applicable law and recourse to the generally recognised principles and regulations of international law. The Court reveals the “implied” rule of an integration legal order on the basis of the teleological method of interpretation which predefines the special charachteristics of the legal argumentation. The limits of judicial discretion are formed by the goals pursued by the integration legal order including the general thrust of the international agreements on achieving integration between states as well as protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms.

Keywordsjudicial discretion, judicial activism, judicial interpretation, teleological method of interpretation, legal argumentation, EAEU Court, European Court of Justice, precedent, integration, protection of human rights
Received12.01.2023
Publication date11.09.2023
Number of characters28920
Cite  
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 131

Readers community rating: votes 0 

1. Barac A. Judicial discretion. М., 1999. P. 12, 68–119 (in Russ.).
2. Berg L.N. The problem of judicial discretion in comparatives // Academic law journal. 2007. No. 4. P. 4–9 (in Russ.).
3. Diyachenko E. Slave of the past, tyrant of the future? Judicial precedent as a form of legal argumentation in the case-law of integration courts // International Justice. 2022. No. 3 (43). P. 52, 53 (in Russ.).
4. Diyachenko E. Judicial activism and its role in case-law of international courts // International justice. 2020. No. 2 (34). P. 107, 110, 111, 115, 119, 122 (in Russ.).
5. Ispolinov А.S. [Judicial activism and judicial rule-making of the Court of Justice of the European Union // International Justice. 2016. No. 1 (17). P. 86 (in Russ.).
6. Kleandrov M.I. About judicial discretion // Russian Justice. 2007. No. 6 (14). P. 5 (in Russ.).
7. Kleandrov M.I. Philosophy of Law and justice // Transformation of the legal paradigm in the civilization development of mankind: reports of the RAS members / ed. by A.N. Savenkov. М., 2019. P. 171, 172 (in Russ.).
8. Lukashuk I.I. Modern law of international treaties: in 2 vols. М., 2004. Vol. 1 (in Russ.).
9. Law in the joint world / ed. by. S.M. Lebedev, T. Ya. Khabrieva. M., 2012.
10. Savenkov A.N. The state and law in the crisis of modern civilization. М., 2020. P. 19 (in Russ.).
11. Telyatnikov V.I. Conviction of the judge. SPb., 2004. P. 94 (in Russ.).
12. Chayka K.L. Legal certainty as a criteria for the validity of the decisions of the Eurasian economic commission on the classification of a particular commodity // Herald of the Russian customs academy. 2020. No. 4. P. 26 (in Russ.).
13. Chayka K.L. The role of the EAEU common values in the formation and development of the integration association’s law // Journal of Russian law. 2020. No. 5. P. 152 (in Russ.).
14. Shinkareckaya G.G. International judicial bodies and the development of International Law // Russian Justice. 2009. No. 1(33). P. 45 (in Russ.).
15. Entin K. General principles of integration law as a secret weapon of the CJEU and of the Eurasian Economic Union Court // International justice. 2022. No. 2 (42). P. 77 (in Russ.).
16. Entin K., Pirker B. Free movement of people in the EAEU: between Civis Eurasiaticus and Homo Oeconomicus // International Justice. 2020. No. 1 (33). P. 83, 84 (in Russ.).
17. Beck G. Judicial Activism in the Court of Justice of the EU // University of Queensland Law Journal. 2019. Vol. 36. No. 2. P. 339, 340.
18. Bengoetxa J. The legal reasoning of the European Court of Justice: towards a European jurisprudence. Oxford, 1993. P. 168.
19. Canor I. The limits of judicial discretion in the European Court of Justice. Baden-Baden, 1998. P. 20, 21.
20. Dworkin R. Law’s empire. London, 1986. P. 95, 96.
21. Feteris E. T. Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation: A Survey of Theories on the Justification of Judicial Decisions. NY, 2017. P. 3, 4, 9, 10.
22. Gardiner R. Treaty Interpretation: second edition. Oxford, 2015. P. 29, 211.
23. Hart H.M., Sacks A.M. The legal process: basic problems in the making and application of law. Cambridge, 1958. P. 162.
24. Hartley T.C. Five forms of uncertainty in European Community Law // Cambridge Law Journal. 1996. Vol. 55. No. 2. P. 265 - 274.
25. Hawkins D.G., Lake D.A., Nielson D.L., Tierney M.J. Delegation under anarchy: states, international organisations and principal-agent theory // Delegation and agency in international organisations / ed. by D.G. Hawkins, D.A. Lake, D.L. Nielson, M.J. Tierney. Cambridge, 2006. P. 17.
26. Jesse M., Carter D.W. Life after the ‘Dano-Trilogy’: Legal Certainty, Choices and Limitations in EU Citizenship Case Law // European Citizenship under Stress / ed. by N. Cambien, D. Kochenov, E. Muir. Leiden, 2020. P. 151.
27. MacCormick D.N., Summers R.S. Interpreting statutes. A comparative study. Dartmouth, 1991. P. 10–12.
28. Pescatore P. Les objectifs de la Communauté européenne comme principes d’interprétation dans la jurisprudence de la Cour de justice // Miscellanea W.J. Ganshof van der Meersch. vol. 2. Bruxelles, 1972. P. 325 - 363.
29. Pirker B., Entin K. Bosman’s second life? The Eurasian Economic Union Court and the free movement of professional athletes // Legal issues of economic integration. 2019. Vol. 46. No. 2. P. 133.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up