Abstract
This article intends to analyze Ukraine’s Constitutional Court in the light of the tolerance interval theory and the backlash thesis, through a case study, which is, the decision issued on October 27, 2020, that held unconstitutional part of the powers of the National Agency for the Corruption Prevention (NAPC). Three comorbidities — particular conditions that weaken the court and render it vulnerable to attacks — in the Ukrainian system are presented: Ukrainian democracy, autocracies tendencies in the presidency, and lack of public confidence in the judicial system. Through the adoption of a Comparative Constitutional Law approach, an index measuring the impact of the ruling is developed and calculated, allowing a comparison of the consequences to other notable controversial rulings in the world. After discussing the findings, the article concludes with some reflections and predictions on the longevity of the Ukrainian Constitutional Court.
Highlights
As opposed to what common sense might suggest, constitutional courts are as vulnerable as crystals
There is a tolerance interval within which it would be safe for constitutional courts to render rulings against the aforementioned preferred positions
The court’s behavior crossed the line of tolerance interval, as well as triggered a fierce backlash. Both the sources of attacks, in a horizontal and vertical perspective, were actioned by the decision rendered by the Malian Constitutional Court
Summary
As opposed to what common sense might suggest, constitutional courts are as vulnerable as crystals. There is a tolerance interval within which it would be safe for constitutional courts to render rulings against the aforementioned preferred positions.. There is a tolerance interval within which it would be safe for constitutional courts to render rulings against the aforementioned preferred positions.1 Beyond these boundaries, distress between institutions becomes more likely to take place. The court’s behavior crossed the line of tolerance interval, as well as triggered a fierce backlash In other words, both the sources of attacks, in a horizontal and vertical perspective, were actioned by the decision rendered by the Malian Constitutional Court. The second section provides a concrete case study, that is, the decision of Ukraine’s Constitutional Court rendered on October 27, 2020. After discussing the findings, regarding the risk assumed by the Constitutional Court, the article resolves with some reflections on its longevity
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
