The goal of social protection for judges in Ukraine

Abstract

It is indicated that in a social, legal and democratic state, any activity regulated by legislation, consistent with the principles of law, must be characterized by a certain goal. This goal should be characterized, firstly, by clarity and unambiguity (in order to comply with the requirements of the principle of the rule of law in terms of the principle of legal certainty); secondly, by scientificity (strategic orientations of activity that contradict the requirements of the principle of scientificity, and therefore do not agree with legal science, economic, psychological, sociological and other sciences, may harm the provision of human rights, law and order, pose risks for social and other types of security) , which ensures the relevance, adequacy, effectiveness and rationality of such a goal. Compliance with these requirements contributes to the fact that the subject who carries out the relevant activity, taking into account its purpose, clearly understands the motives, grounds, conditions, procedure, legal consequences of actions and inaction within the limits of this activity, and is also able to predict the consequences of such activity, correct their actions in a timely manner in connection with changes in normative or factual circumstances of reality, etc. Therefore, without clarifying the purpose of the activity, it is impossible to clearly understand the content of the activity, which reduces its social and legal significanceThe article defines the goal of social protection for judges in Ukraine. In a broader context, the purpose of social protection is to create appropriate conditions for the socially safe existence of individuals, for whom social protection measures are directed. To refine this definition, the author conducts a comprehensive analysis of general approaches (positive, negative, and combined) to understand the concept of “the goal of social protection” and evaluates their advantages and disadvantages. Within the framework of a combined approach, it is argued that the goal of social protection of judges in Ukraine is twofold: firstly, to mitigate or minimize the negative effects of various social risks associated with the work of judges; and secondly, to establish a comprehensive set of socially safe conditions for judges’ (including retired judges) existence that meet standards aligned with their human dignity and are appropriate to the specific nature of their work. The article emphasizes that social protection for judges highlights the primary practical principle that judges (including retired judges and their family members) should feel secure. Consequently, social protection measures that do not aim to restore or maintain an adequate level of social security for these individuals cannot be considered genuine social protection measures. This jeopardizes judges’ independence and autonomy. Moreover, if social protection measures aimed at ensuring social security for judges fail to yield positive outcomes, it suggests the ineffectiveness or inadequacy of such measures. This necessitates a reevaluation and analysis of factors that impede social protection for judges.