The Role of Court in Times of Crisis: Issues of Credibility, Legitimacy and Practice

A comparative analysis of limitations on rights in crisis conditions indicates that the common approach of courts is to balance the effective functioning of state institutions with the protection of human rights and freedoms. The main task is to properly define a fair balance between competing demands of freedom and security, which can be successful in legal systems with flexible models of limitations and responsible judges who assess the nature of limitations in extreme conditions and can independently and impartially exercise judicial control. Every crisis requires the state to take prompt measures to protect the lives and health of people, and this is directly related to the activation of all branches of government, with the main burden falling on the executive power. At the same time, every crisis puts the legal system to the test of its true commitment to human rights. Even though restrictions seem to be the most popular tool, narrowing the scope of rights may be justified in cases where the protection of vital values cannot be achieved otherwise. The approach chosen by the state must be characterised by its legitimacy, respect for fundamental freedoms, and be used only in strictly necessary cases. The task of judges during a crisis is to skillfully demonstrate restraint and activism, guided by the principles of certainty, proportionality, and balance of rights. Modern technologies contribute to facilitating access to justice and in this sense, as paradoxical as it may sound, crisis situations serve to mobilise the rational use of opportunities and promote innovation in legal proceedings.

Keywords

restriction of rights, freedom and security, fair balance, judicial control, certainty, proportionality, fundamental rights

Received

03.07.2024

Publication date

05.07.2024

Cite

GOST	Gadjiev K. The Role of Court in Times of Crisis: Issues of Credibility, Legitimacy and Practice // Journal of Foreign Legislation and Comparative Law – 2023. – Articles_JZZSP_2023-2024 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://jzsp.jes.su/S199132220030813-0-1 (circulation date: 22.07.2024). DOI: 10.61205/S199132220030813-0
MLA	Gadjiev, Khanlar "The Role of Court in Times of Crisis: Issues of Credibility, Legitimacy and Practice." Journal of Foreign Legislation and Comparative Law 0 (2023) DOI: 10.61205/S199132220030813-0
APA	Gadjiev K. (2023). The Role of Court in Times of Crisis: Issues of Credibility, Legitimacy and Practice. Journal of Foreign Legislation and Comparative Law (0) DOI: 10.61205/S199132220030813-0

100 rub.

When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. John Locke. Two Treaties of Government. London. 1823, pp. 117, 198).

2. Чичерин Б.Н. Общее государственное право. М. Изд. «Зеркало», 2006, стр. 67.

3. Constant B. Écrits politiques. 1982. Paris. Gallimard, P. 714.

4. Kristoy Nyiri. Facing the Future, Facing the Screen. Budapest, 2022, p. 21.

5. Правовые и институциональные основы предупреждения и ликвидации последствий чрезвычайных ситуаций. Под ред. Хабриевой Т.Я., Андриченко Л.В., 2016, с. 105-120.

6. Wendy E. Parmet. Dangerous Perspectives: The Perils of individualized, Public Health Problem. Journal of Legal Medicine, 2009, p. 98.

7. Yaser E. Hamdi et al v Donald H Rumsfeld et al 542 US 507 (2004).

8. Case T-351/01 Yassin A Kodi v Council of the EU and Commission of the EC (2005) ECR II-3649.

9. Salim A Hamdan v Donald H Rumsfeld of al 548 US 557 (2006).

10. Case T-228/02 Organization des Modjahedines du peuple d’Iran (OMPI) v Conceal of the EU, (2006),. ECR II-4665.

11. Fabirini Federico. The Role of the Judiciary in Times of Emergency:Judicial Review of Counter-Terrorism Measures in the United States Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice.Boston.2015.pp.664-697.

12. Montesquieu. De l’esprit des lois (Livre XI, Chapitre XIX « Comment on suspend l'usage de la liberté dans la république ») // URL: https://philo-labo.fr/fichiers/Montesquieu%20-%2004%20L'esprit%20des%20lois.pdf

13. Arthur H.Garrison. Supreme Court jurisprudence in Times of National Crisis,Terrorism,and War. A Historical Perspective.Published by lexington Books.2011. p.423-449.

14. McCormick N. Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory. Oxford. 1978. P.p 19, 132.

15. Wildhaler Luzius. The European Court of Human Rights. 1998-2006. History, Achievements, Reform. N.P. Engel Publisher. 2006, p. 242.

16. John Murray v. The United Kingdom. №18731/91, постановление от 8 февраля 1996 г.

17. Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. The United Kingdom, №12244/86, 12245/86, 12383/86, постановление от 30 августа 1990 г.

18. Klass and Others v. Germany, №5029/71, постановление от 6 сентября 1978 г.

19. Italian Constitutional Court jdg.n.220/1995.

20. Da Silva Carvalho Rico v. Portugal, №62235/12 and 57725/12, решение от 8 октября 2013 г.; Rimantas Savickas v. Lithuania, №66365/09, решение от 15 октября 2013 г.

21. Зорькин В.Д. Конституционный Суд России: доктрина и практика, М. Норма, 2018. с. 173.

22. European Welfare State Constitutions after the Financial Crisis. Oxford. 2020 p. 96-97.

23. Harris and others. Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (2 nd edn, Oxford University Press .2009. P. 675.

24. Lithgow and Others v. The United Kingdom, №9006/80…, постановление от 8 июля 1986 г.; Guillemin v. France (art 50), №19632/92, постановление от 2 сентября 1998 г.

25. Broniowski v. Poland, №31483/96, постановлении от 22 июня 2004 г.

26. Bilchitz Dand. Socio-Economic Rights and Doctrine (2014) 12 Iut’I) Const L 710; Corte cost №10/2016 №260/1990; Corte cost №356/1992 ; n 376/2006, n 252/2001.

27. 197 U.S. 11, 27 (1905).

28. Lawless v. Ireland, №332/57, постановление от 1 июля 1961 г.

29. Brannigan and McBride v. The United Kingdom, №755389, постановление от 25 мая 1993 г.

30. 16 April 2020 CDL-PI (2020)003.

31. CDL-AD(2016)006; CDL-AD(2016)037.

32. Wendy K. Mariner. Shifting Standards of Judicial Review during the Coronavirus Pandemic in the United States. German Law Journal, 15.09.2021. P.1058.

33. Jurist .India Supreme Court:religious rights subservient to right to health and life. Legal News and Commentary. 20.07.2021

34. Roman Heusel. The Federal Constitutional Court's Final Decisions on the “Emergency Brake”. 02/12/2021, Lex-Atlas: Covid-19.

35. Lex-Atlas: Covid-19 Legal battle over the closure of schools in the city of Buenos Aires. 01.06.2021.

36. Clandio Corradetti and Oreste Pollicino. The “War” AgarustCovid-19: State of Exception, State of Siege, or (Constitutional) Emergency Powers ? The Italian Case in Comparative Perspective. German Law Journal. 15.09.2021.19 , 1061-1071.

37. MacCormick N. Law is an argumentative discipline. Rhetoric and Rule of Law. A Theory of Legal Reasoning. Oxford. 2005, p. 14.

38. Dworkin R.Justice ir Robes. Harvard University Press Cambridge. 2006. P. 234.

39. Jess Bonnan White. Avoiding the emperor’s prophecy: a case for the primacy of emergency management in criminal justice and human Security studies. 2018. 18 Contemporary justice REV 296 of 297.

40. Момотов В.В. Вступительная статья в кн. Электронное правосудие. М. 2021, с. 6.

41. Dworkin R. Law’s Empire Cambridge. 1986. Pp. 470.

42. Jessup Phillip Transnational Law. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1956. Pp. 113.