Abstract
The relevance of the study is stipulated by the necessity to determine the directions of the rule of law implementation (as a fundamental value of Western law culture) into the national law system. The statistics of the European Court of Human Rights, the study of the rule of law index in the world, the decisions of national courts as to the rule of law principle implementation are analyzed, some decisions of the European Court of Human Rights as to the rule of law are processed. Emphasis is placed on the impossibility of adequate study of the rule of law within the normative understanding of law. The rule of law can function only if the provisions of the natural and law understanding of law are implemented. Only by realizing what the rule of law is can it be implemented into legal practice. It is noted that the analysis of national courts’ judgments allowed experts to draw a number of conclusions about the inappropriate level of the rule of law principle application by domestic judges, which is usually brought to quoting individual judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (mostly the same) or references to articles of the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the implicit content of the human rights enshrined in these articles is not disclosed). The following areas of the rule of law implementation are noted and characterized. First, the ideological direction: given that the principle of the rule of law is inherent in Western tradition of law based on a natural understanding of law, and is incompatible with the normative school of law, to which indicates the lack of understanding of the content of this principle by a number of judges, then without changing the legal paradigm further implementation of the rule of law principle has no sense. Only by realizing what the rule of law is, it can it be implemented into legal practice. This direction involves radical changes in the system of national law, which can occur only due to involvement of public authorities in legal values. Secondly, the scientific and practical direction: if within the first direction the emphasis is on future employees of public authorities, this direction concerns those persons who implement the state policy in life today. A prerequisite for holding a position in public authorities should be a systematic training, an integral part of which should be mastering the subject within which employees will learn about the understanding of human rights, their implicit nature, the rule of law principle, study the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. Third, the normative and legal direction: the necessity of adoption of the legal act which will systematically define the order of realization of administrative process is proved.
Highlights
It is noted that the analysis of national courts’ judgments allowed experts to draw a number of conclusions about the inappropriate level of the rule of law principle application by domestic judges, which is usually brought to quoting individual judgments of the European Court of Human Rights or references to articles of the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
The ideological direction: given that the principle of the rule of law is inherent in Western tradition of law based on a natural understanding of law, and is incompatible with the normative school of law, to which indicates the lack of understanding of the content of this principle by a number of judges, without changing the legal paradigm further implementation of the rule of law principle has no sense
By realizing what the rule of law is, it can it be implemented into legal practice
Summary
In addition to ontological and heuristic functions, any science performs a practical function. The issue of the rule of law implementation into the administrative process in Ukraine, and borrowing the best practices of European states becomes especially relevant. We can note that the urgency of studying the directions for improving the rule of law implementation for the national legal science is enhanced by a number of factors, including the following: 1. National law system is largely dominated by the understanding of the relationship “a person – state” because of paternalistic discourse, which allows public authorities not to justify decisions, but to refer only to the relevant article of the relevant normative and legal act, as well as in case of human rights restrictions (and as we found out above, legality is only one of the three grounds for the legitimacy of the human rights restriction), which is incompatible with the requirements of the rule of law principle; 5. Relationship “a person – public authorities” the principle of human rights priority over the public authorities’ powers is not applied in most cases
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.