乌克兰在司法领域的复苏:挑战和优先目标

M. Stefanchuk
{"title":"乌克兰在司法领域的复苏:挑战和优先目标","authors":"M. Stefanchuk","doi":"10.33327/ajee-18-5.4-n000467","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Currently in Ukraine, a significant objective is to promote the construction of a peaceable and open society, ensuring access to justice for all. Such a system must be effective, accountable, and based on the broad participation of institutions at all levels. This article highlights some of the priority steps in the recovery of the justice system in Ukraine. Special attention is given to the priority goals and problematic aspects of the functioning of the institutions of the national justice system, given the declared aim of forming a sustainable justice system. Current challenges in the field of national justice, priority goals and appropriate measures for their achievement have all been analysed.\nMethods: To achieve the goals of the research, general and special scientific research methods were applied, such as comparative-legal and semantic-structural methods and the method of grouping, analysis, synthesis, and generalisation.\nResults and Conclusions: It has been established that the first priority goal of ensuring proper functioning of the judiciary is structural modernisation and optimisation of judicial authorities, including a comprehensive audit of the powers of bodies and institutions of the justice system in order to eliminate duplication of functions and ensure procedures for the effective use of resources.\nThe following were substantiated as risks for achieving such a goal: controversial recognition of the impossibility of the state to be solely responsible for the duration of processes for updating the authorised composition of judicial governance bodies; proposals for the transformation of the system of professional training and professional development of judges; the lack of objective justification for the determination of judicial jurisdiction for the consideration of certain categories of cases; and proposals for recognising the long-term consideration in the parliament of the Draft Law on abolition of the Bar monopoly.\nCurrent trends in the development of functions of advocacy in Ukraine have been highlighted, including selective and inconsistent implementation of bar monopoly on representation of another person in court; restriction of the rights of the Bar self-government bodies in the field of forming judicial corps, extension of the state's control powers advocacy; and the search for an optimal model of governance of the advocacy profession. The key challenges of the prosecutor's office, and priority goals and measures for their achievement, have been highlighted. The possible risks of further reform of this institution due to the disputed constitutionality of its personnel, which were reset as a result of previous priority reform measures, have been emphasised, which may call into question the legitimacy of the new staff of the prosecutor's office and does not allow the assertion of the final completion of these processes.","PeriodicalId":40329,"journal":{"name":"Access to Justice in Eastern Europe","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"THE RECOVERY OF UKRAINE IN THE FIELD OF JUSTICE: CHALLENGES AND PRIORITY GOALS\",\"authors\":\"M. Stefanchuk\",\"doi\":\"10.33327/ajee-18-5.4-n000467\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Currently in Ukraine, a significant objective is to promote the construction of a peaceable and open society, ensuring access to justice for all. Such a system must be effective, accountable, and based on the broad participation of institutions at all levels. This article highlights some of the priority steps in the recovery of the justice system in Ukraine. Special attention is given to the priority goals and problematic aspects of the functioning of the institutions of the national justice system, given the declared aim of forming a sustainable justice system. Current challenges in the field of national justice, priority goals and appropriate measures for their achievement have all been analysed.\\nMethods: To achieve the goals of the research, general and special scientific research methods were applied, such as comparative-legal and semantic-structural methods and the method of grouping, analysis, synthesis, and generalisation.\\nResults and Conclusions: It has been established that the first priority goal of ensuring proper functioning of the judiciary is structural modernisation and optimisation of judicial authorities, including a comprehensive audit of the powers of bodies and institutions of the justice system in order to eliminate duplication of functions and ensure procedures for the effective use of resources.\\nThe following were substantiated as risks for achieving such a goal: controversial recognition of the impossibility of the state to be solely responsible for the duration of processes for updating the authorised composition of judicial governance bodies; proposals for the transformation of the system of professional training and professional development of judges; the lack of objective justification for the determination of judicial jurisdiction for the consideration of certain categories of cases; and proposals for recognising the long-term consideration in the parliament of the Draft Law on abolition of the Bar monopoly.\\nCurrent trends in the development of functions of advocacy in Ukraine have been highlighted, including selective and inconsistent implementation of bar monopoly on representation of another person in court; restriction of the rights of the Bar self-government bodies in the field of forming judicial corps, extension of the state's control powers advocacy; and the search for an optimal model of governance of the advocacy profession. The key challenges of the prosecutor's office, and priority goals and measures for their achievement, have been highlighted. The possible risks of further reform of this institution due to the disputed constitutionality of its personnel, which were reset as a result of previous priority reform measures, have been emphasised, which may call into question the legitimacy of the new staff of the prosecutor's office and does not allow the assertion of the final completion of these processes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":40329,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Access to Justice in Eastern Europe\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Access to Justice in Eastern Europe\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.33327/ajee-18-5.4-n000467\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Access to Justice in Eastern Europe","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33327/ajee-18-5.4-n000467","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:目前在乌克兰,一个重要的目标是促进建设一个和平和开放的社会,确保所有人都能诉诸司法。这种制度必须是有效的、负责任的,并以各级机构的广泛参与为基础。本文重点介绍了恢复乌克兰司法系统的一些优先步骤。鉴于已宣布的建立可持续司法制度的目标,特别注意国家司法制度机构运作的优先目标和有问题的方面。对国家司法领域目前面临的挑战、优先目标和实现这些目标的适当措施都进行了分析。方法:为达到研究目的,采用了比较法、语义结构法、分组法、分析法、综合法、概括法等一般和特殊的科学研究方法。结果和结论:已经确定,确保司法机关正常运作的首要优先目标是司法当局的结构现代化和优化,包括对司法系统各机关和机构的权力进行全面审计,以消除职能重复和确保有效利用资源的程序。以下情况被证实是实现这一目标的风险:有争议地承认国家不可能全权负责更新司法治理机构的授权组成的进程的持续时间;法官职业培训制度改革与职业发展的建议确定某些类别案件的司法管辖权缺乏客观依据;以及承认议会长期考虑的关于废除律师垄断的法律草案的建议。目前在乌克兰发展辩护职能的趋势已得到强调,包括有选择地和不一致地执行律师垄断他人在法庭上的代理;限制律师自治机构在组建司法队伍方面的权利,扩大国家控制权的主张;以及对倡导行业治理的最佳模式的探索。强调了检察官办公室的主要挑战以及实现这些挑战的优先目标和措施。这一机构的进一步改革可能有危险,因为它的人员是由于以前的优先改革措施而重新安排的,因此对其合宪性存在争议,这可能使人对检察官办公室新工作人员的合法性产生疑问,并且不能断言这些过程已经最后完成。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
THE RECOVERY OF UKRAINE IN THE FIELD OF JUSTICE: CHALLENGES AND PRIORITY GOALS
Background: Currently in Ukraine, a significant objective is to promote the construction of a peaceable and open society, ensuring access to justice for all. Such a system must be effective, accountable, and based on the broad participation of institutions at all levels. This article highlights some of the priority steps in the recovery of the justice system in Ukraine. Special attention is given to the priority goals and problematic aspects of the functioning of the institutions of the national justice system, given the declared aim of forming a sustainable justice system. Current challenges in the field of national justice, priority goals and appropriate measures for their achievement have all been analysed. Methods: To achieve the goals of the research, general and special scientific research methods were applied, such as comparative-legal and semantic-structural methods and the method of grouping, analysis, synthesis, and generalisation. Results and Conclusions: It has been established that the first priority goal of ensuring proper functioning of the judiciary is structural modernisation and optimisation of judicial authorities, including a comprehensive audit of the powers of bodies and institutions of the justice system in order to eliminate duplication of functions and ensure procedures for the effective use of resources. The following were substantiated as risks for achieving such a goal: controversial recognition of the impossibility of the state to be solely responsible for the duration of processes for updating the authorised composition of judicial governance bodies; proposals for the transformation of the system of professional training and professional development of judges; the lack of objective justification for the determination of judicial jurisdiction for the consideration of certain categories of cases; and proposals for recognising the long-term consideration in the parliament of the Draft Law on abolition of the Bar monopoly. Current trends in the development of functions of advocacy in Ukraine have been highlighted, including selective and inconsistent implementation of bar monopoly on representation of another person in court; restriction of the rights of the Bar self-government bodies in the field of forming judicial corps, extension of the state's control powers advocacy; and the search for an optimal model of governance of the advocacy profession. The key challenges of the prosecutor's office, and priority goals and measures for their achievement, have been highlighted. The possible risks of further reform of this institution due to the disputed constitutionality of its personnel, which were reset as a result of previous priority reform measures, have been emphasised, which may call into question the legitimacy of the new staff of the prosecutor's office and does not allow the assertion of the final completion of these processes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
50.00%
发文量
62
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Challenges of Legal Guarantees for the Enforcement of Arbitral Awards in International Commercial Cases Advancing Sustainable Justice through AI-Based Case Law Analysis The Implementation of Consensual Tenet in Modern Civil Procedure: Comparative Analysis of Court-Connected Settlement Procedures Applied in Austria, Lithuania, and Ukraine Human Trafficking in Western Balkan: Case Study of Kosovo Towards an Effective Legal Protection for Older Persons in the 21st Century: A Comparative Study of International Human Rights Law and Arab Constitutions
×
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