?
Востребованность и пределы судебного нормотворчества
Introduction: the article deals with judicial rulemaking of international judicial institutions. Materials and Methods: the authors made a theoretical and empirical analysis of the main sources of international and European law, the court practice of international judicial institutions, the works of domestic and foreign scholars, analytical documents of international organizations. Results: the article proves that judicial rule- making is well-established international practice which in some cases is especially needed. Judicial rule-making is perceived by the doc- trine as a natural, necessary and legitimate legal phenomenon. In practice two forms of judicial rule-making have developed - judicial rule- making may involve interpretation of both the content of a rule of law and procedural aspects. However, international judicial institutions should strive to refrain from judicial activism and judicial rule-making. It must be borne in mind that the activities of international courts must rely on the support of national courts and the expert community. Discussion and Conclusions: according to the currently prevailing views, which made a decisive impact on the evolution of theory of state and law, judicial rule-making is inseparable from the daily implementation of judicial functions. Both the society and the legislator are in urgent need for it regardless of whether they admit it or not or even act against it. It is necessary in all cases where the legislator does not keep up with the progress of the changes caused by the rapid evolution of society and new opportunities of scientific and technological progress. It is often beneficial for the legislator that the courts should have tested various approaches and have developed a well-established practice, and the application of this practice should have suggested the most rational decisions. Judicial rulemaking developed especially widely in the judiciary of international/regional integration associations and within the framework of international mechanisms with elements of supranational coercion, first of all, in the practice of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European court of human rights. The whole system of EU law has gained the most features and basic characteristics associated with it thanks to the Luxembourg Court. These features and characteristics include positioning EU law as a system of law that differs from international and domestic law, the supremacy and direct effect, the effective jurisdictional protection, strict compliance with the requirements of subsidiarity and proportionality, etc. In turn the Strasbourg Court has done a lot in order to turn positive and procedural rules of the European Convention on human rights into “a living and developing organism.” However, periods of judicial activism have always been nothing more than a reaction to a request by the states or the need for solving tasks. The last word always belongs to major players who has always been society and legislators. When it is necessary they easily impose certain limitations on judicial rulemaking. It has already been made in respect of the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union in the legal order. However, the Minsk Court faces difficult tasks concerning the application of the EAEU law and on its formation. There- fore, it is important that the Minsk Court should determine as quickly as possible the precedential nature of its decisions, the possibility of using other sources of law, along with the EAEU Treaty and its secondary law, and how to tie up the national legal system of the member states in a common legal space.