LEGAL RULES CREATED BY COURTS: AN OVERVIEW

M. Kuchin, E. Gulyaeva
{"title":"LEGAL RULES CREATED BY COURTS: AN OVERVIEW","authors":"M. Kuchin, E. Gulyaeva","doi":"10.26668/indexlawjournals/2358-1352/2021.v30i11.8421","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We seek to understand the definition of legal rules created by national and international courts. We seek to look into the content of legal rules in Russian legal doctrine by classifying them into three groups. The authors consider the importance of historical background of this issue due to the changes in the international judicial system and Russian procedural legislation. We seek to analyze the phenomenon of a legal rule created by the court. We found out that all the legal rules created by courts could be divided into three main groups, depending on the source: the rules fixed in the normative legal acts of the courts; the rules fixed in normative judicial decisions; and customary legal rules approved by the courts. In general, each of the listed groups of rules has its own characteristics, which are much similar to those of by-laws, precedents, and customs respectively. The legal effect of the rules created by the court is various and depends on what body introduces a rule. The authors concluded that the rules fixed in the Resolutions of the Russian Constitutional Court are ranked between constitutional rules and legislative rules. The rules coming from the Russian Supreme Court are ranked between the rules of law and the rules of by-laws. When it comes to the rules created by international courts, two important points must be taken into account. First, international courts, on the one hand, create new rules of international law based on other more general rules and principles. On the other hand, due to the lack of a clear hierarchy of rules in international law, such rules, unlike the norms of by-laws in Russian law, do not have a dependent (subordinate) nature. Second, the principle of the supremacy of the Russian Constitution over international regulations allows us to place international rules between the Russian Constitution and Russian laws. The authors considered that this approach makes it possible to integrate the new category of rules into the general regulatory system. The researchers found out that important characteristics of the rules created by the court are their subsidiary nature and retrospective nature. The rule-making freedom of the court is limited by other applicable legal rules. The court usually creates a rule only in cases where there are no other rules to govern the disputed legal relation. That is why the life of the rules created by the court is often short. When a legislative or executive body adopts another rule on the same issue, the previously created court rule is usually considered to be cancelled. The researchers came to the conclusion that Russian legal experts have no common opinion on the issue of the normative value of the legal provisions developed through the Resolutions of the Plenums of the Supreme Courts of the USSR and the Union Republics. Following a review of the content, we raised possible problems, strategies, suggestions and guidelines for the legal rules created by courts. The authors conclude that the analysis makes it possible to distinguish a special group of rules created by courts. This special group of rules is a regulatory reality that many experts in the field of general theory of law and international law have been paying attention to in recent decades. The authors conclude that the regulation of this area at the legislative level would greatly contribute to strengthening the principle of judicial practice unity. We also point out that the concepts of the legal position and of the rules created by the court can coincide only when the acts of higher judicial bodies are in question. If we consider the concept of the legal position in the broader sense used in practice, it becomes obvious that it also covers other aspects that are in no way rules. When it comes to similar concepts, for example, precedential rules and interpretative rules, they can be considered as varieties of the rules created by courts. The authors come to the conclusion that court decision references to the provisions fixed in the previously adopted judicial acts of the aforementioned judicial bodies have become the legal basis for making a decision. This means that the normative value of judicial acts has been recognized at the legislative level. Otherwise, there is no need for legislative provisions of this sort. The researchers encourage to recognize the phenomenon of a legal rule created by the court, and to differentiate it from other similar concepts used in jurisprudence. The closest to this category is the aforementioned concept of the court's legal positions. The research uses general scientific and special cognitive techniques wherein legal analysis and synthesis, systemic, formal-legal, comparative-legal, historical-legal and dialectical methods are applied.","PeriodicalId":30997,"journal":{"name":"Revista de Direito Brasileira","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista de Direito Brasileira","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26668/indexlawjournals/2358-1352/2021.v30i11.8421","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We seek to understand the definition of legal rules created by national and international courts. We seek to look into the content of legal rules in Russian legal doctrine by classifying them into three groups. The authors consider the importance of historical background of this issue due to the changes in the international judicial system and Russian procedural legislation. We seek to analyze the phenomenon of a legal rule created by the court. We found out that all the legal rules created by courts could be divided into three main groups, depending on the source: the rules fixed in the normative legal acts of the courts; the rules fixed in normative judicial decisions; and customary legal rules approved by the courts. In general, each of the listed groups of rules has its own characteristics, which are much similar to those of by-laws, precedents, and customs respectively. The legal effect of the rules created by the court is various and depends on what body introduces a rule. The authors concluded that the rules fixed in the Resolutions of the Russian Constitutional Court are ranked between constitutional rules and legislative rules. The rules coming from the Russian Supreme Court are ranked between the rules of law and the rules of by-laws. When it comes to the rules created by international courts, two important points must be taken into account. First, international courts, on the one hand, create new rules of international law based on other more general rules and principles. On the other hand, due to the lack of a clear hierarchy of rules in international law, such rules, unlike the norms of by-laws in Russian law, do not have a dependent (subordinate) nature. Second, the principle of the supremacy of the Russian Constitution over international regulations allows us to place international rules between the Russian Constitution and Russian laws. The authors considered that this approach makes it possible to integrate the new category of rules into the general regulatory system. The researchers found out that important characteristics of the rules created by the court are their subsidiary nature and retrospective nature. The rule-making freedom of the court is limited by other applicable legal rules. The court usually creates a rule only in cases where there are no other rules to govern the disputed legal relation. That is why the life of the rules created by the court is often short. When a legislative or executive body adopts another rule on the same issue, the previously created court rule is usually considered to be cancelled. The researchers came to the conclusion that Russian legal experts have no common opinion on the issue of the normative value of the legal provisions developed through the Resolutions of the Plenums of the Supreme Courts of the USSR and the Union Republics. Following a review of the content, we raised possible problems, strategies, suggestions and guidelines for the legal rules created by courts. The authors conclude that the analysis makes it possible to distinguish a special group of rules created by courts. This special group of rules is a regulatory reality that many experts in the field of general theory of law and international law have been paying attention to in recent decades. The authors conclude that the regulation of this area at the legislative level would greatly contribute to strengthening the principle of judicial practice unity. We also point out that the concepts of the legal position and of the rules created by the court can coincide only when the acts of higher judicial bodies are in question. If we consider the concept of the legal position in the broader sense used in practice, it becomes obvious that it also covers other aspects that are in no way rules. When it comes to similar concepts, for example, precedential rules and interpretative rules, they can be considered as varieties of the rules created by courts. The authors come to the conclusion that court decision references to the provisions fixed in the previously adopted judicial acts of the aforementioned judicial bodies have become the legal basis for making a decision. This means that the normative value of judicial acts has been recognized at the legislative level. Otherwise, there is no need for legislative provisions of this sort. The researchers encourage to recognize the phenomenon of a legal rule created by the court, and to differentiate it from other similar concepts used in jurisprudence. The closest to this category is the aforementioned concept of the court's legal positions. The research uses general scientific and special cognitive techniques wherein legal analysis and synthesis, systemic, formal-legal, comparative-legal, historical-legal and dialectical methods are applied.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
法院制定的法律规则:概述
我们力求了解国家和国际法院制定的法律规则的定义。我们试图通过将俄罗斯法律学说中的法律规则分为三类来研究其内容。作者认为,由于国际司法制度和俄罗斯程序立法的变化,这一问题的历史背景具有重要意义。我们试图分析法院制定法律规则的现象。我们发现,法院制定的所有法律规则根据来源可分为三大类:法院规范性法律行为中确定的规则;规范性司法裁决中规定的规则;以及法院批准的习惯法律规则。总的来说,所列出的每一组规则都有自己的特点,分别与章程、先例和惯例非常相似。法院制定的规则的法律效力是多种多样的,取决于引入规则的机构。提交人的结论是,俄罗斯宪法法院决议中确定的规则介于宪法规则和立法规则之间。来自俄罗斯最高法院的规则介于法律规则和章程规则之间。当谈到国际法院制定的规则时,必须考虑到两个要点。首先,一方面,国际法院在其他更一般的规则和原则的基础上制定新的国际法规则。另一方面,由于国际法中缺乏明确的规则等级,与俄罗斯法律中的附例规范不同,这种规则不具有从属(从属)性质。第二,俄罗斯宪法高于国际法规的原则使我们能够将国际规则置于俄罗斯宪法和俄罗斯法律之间。作者认为,这种方法有可能将新类别的规则纳入一般监管体系。研究人员发现,法院制定的规则的重要特征是其附属性和追溯性。法院制定规则的自由受到其他适用法律规则的限制。法院通常只在没有其他规则来管理有争议的法律关系的情况下才制定规则。这就是为什么法院制定的规则的寿命往往很短的原因。当立法或行政机构就同一问题通过另一条规则时,先前制定的法院规则通常被视为被取消。研究人员得出的结论是,俄罗斯法律专家对通过苏联和联邦共和国最高法院全体会议决议制定的法律条款的规范价值问题没有共同意见。在对内容进行审查后,我们提出了法院制定法律规则可能存在的问题、策略、建议和指导方针。作者得出的结论是,通过分析可以区分法院制定的一组特殊规则。这组特殊的规则是近几十年来许多法学和国际法领域专家一直关注的监管现实。作者的结论是,在立法层面对这一领域进行监管将大大有助于加强司法实践统一的原则。我们还指出,只有当上级司法机构的行为受到质疑时,法律地位和法院制定的规则的概念才能一致。如果我们考虑在实践中使用的更广泛意义上的法律地位概念,很明显,它还涵盖了其他方面,这些方面根本不是规则。当涉及到类似的概念时,例如判例规则和解释性规则,它们可以被视为法院制定的各种规则。提交人得出的结论是,法院裁决中提及上述司法机构先前通过的司法法案中的规定,已成为作出裁决的法律依据。这意味着司法行为的规范价值在立法层面得到了承认。研究人员鼓励承认法院创造的法律规则现象,并将其与法理学中使用的其他类似概念区分开来。最接近这一类别的是上述法院法律立场的概念。研究运用了一般科学和特殊的认知技术,运用了法律分析与综合、系统法、形式法、比较法、历史法和辩证法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
TELEMEDICINA NO DIREITO COMPARADO: IMPLICAÇÕES JURÍDICAS DECORRENTES DA AUTORIZAÇÃO EMERGENCIAL DEVIDO À PANDEMIA DE COVID-19 GARANTÍA DE LA DIGNIDAD DE LA MUJER GESTANTE EN LA GESTACIÓN POR SUSTITUCIÓN. UN ESTUDIO A PARTIR DE LA JURISPRUDENCIA DE CÓRDOBA (ARGENTINA) LE CONSEGUENZE DEI VIZI DI FORMA E PROCEDURA NEI LICENZIAMENTI INDIVIDUALI E COLLETTIVI DIREITOS HUMANOS E EMPRESAS: UMA ABORDAGEM COMPARATIVA ENTRE O DECRETO 9.571/2018 E A RESOLUÇÃO Nº 5/2020 DO CNDH O DIREITO AO ESQUECIMENTO POST MORTEM À LUZ DO DIREITO DE PERSONALIDADE E DO JULGAMENTO DO SUPREMO TRIBUNAL FEDERAL NA REPERCUSSÃO GERAL 786
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1