Available in Russian
Author: Viktor Balakaev
DOI: 10.21128/1812-7126-2025-3-26-49
Keywords: order to enact legislation; enforcement of constitutional court decisions; constitutionality; normative order; separation of powers; judicial activism
As a rule, a court decision’s value is in its implementation. Decisions of constitutional justice are no exception. The high mission of constitutional courts — bringing the legal system in line with the constitutional ideals — cannot be achieved without the participation of the legislature, which receives a large share of their rulings. It is logical that courts will seek to increase the effectiveness of enforcing their decisions by all available means. One such tool is an order to enact or to create legislation (normative order) which is an order made to the law-making body to amend legal rules, the aim is to remove a violation of the constitution. However, this part of constitutional court decisions usually goes unnoticed, not only in legal scholarship but also by the main addressee — the legislature. To gain a fuller understanding of normative orders, the author reviews constitutional courts’ jurisprudence in different legal families: common law (Canada, USA), civil law (Germany, Spain, Russia), and mixed systems (Israel, South Africa), also referring to legal doctrine, opinions of judges, and arguments of parties in court cases. The author focuses not only on the formal legal features of a normative order, but also on how it is developed inside the work of constitutional justice. The research shows that a normative order is an independent legal tool that serves different purposes than declaring a law unconstitutional, removing it from force, or interpreting it in a way consistent with the constitution. Normative orders can prevent future violations of the constitution and motivate the legislature to carry out the court’s decision, and most importantly, they can help the legal system develop. At the same time, the hypothesis that normative orders can only exist in a specific legal family or model of separation of powers is not confirmed. In reality, normative orders are very sensitive to various legal, political, and social factors, and identifying these factors requires separate research. Further study of normative orders, their origins, and their use in different countries could help address the larger problem of non-implementation or ineffective implementation of constitutional courts’ decisions.
About the author: Viktor Balakaev – Junior Researcher, Institute of Philosophy and Law, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Yekaterinburg, Russia.
Citation:
Balakaev V. (2025) Normativnye predpisaniya organov konstitutsionnogo kontrolya: vvedenie v problematiku [Constitutional review bodies’ orders to enact legislation: an introduction to the issue]. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.34, no.3, pp.26–49. (In Russian).
References
Balakaev V.D. (2025) “Budet ispolneno!”: praktika reagirovaniya frantsuzskogo zakonodatelya na resheniya Konstitutsionnogo soveta Frantsii [“Yes, your Excellency!”: the French Parliament’s reaction to Constitutional Council’s decisions]. Rossiyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal, no.2, pp.91–102. (In Russian).
Barak A. (2002) The Role of a Supreme Court in a Democracy. Hastings Law Journal, vol.53, no.5, pp.1205–1216.
Bondar' N.S. (2017) Konstitutsionnyy sud v sisteme yurisdiktsionnykh organov (o “bogougodnykh grekhakh” konstitutsionnogo pravosudiya) [The Constitutional Court in the system of jurisdictional bodies (of godly sins of constitutional justice)]. Zhurnal zarubezhnogo zakonodatel'stva i sravnitel'nogo pravovedeniya, no.1, pp.26–32. (In Russian).
Chirninov A.M. (2025) Kriterii otsenki konstitutsionno-sudebnoy argumentatsii [Criteria for evaluating constitutional judicial argumentation]. Lex Russica, no.7, pp.48–69. (In Russian).
Chirninov A. (2020) Razreshenie politicheskikh voprosov sredstvami konstitutsionnogo pravosudiya: iskhodnye punkty argumentatsii v sravnitel'no-pravovoy perspektive [When political questions and constitutional justice meet: the starting points of argumentation in a comparative perspective]. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.29, no.4, pp.55–79. (In Russian).
Chirninov A. (2021) Ubedit' nel'zya prinudit': tsel' i funktsii konstitutsionno-sudebnoy argumentatsii [To persuade or not to persuade? On the purpose and functions of constitutional argumentation]. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.30, no.4, pp.68–96. (In Russian).
Dudko I. (2024) “Net nichego vazhnee melochey”, ili Problema ispolneniya resheniy Konstitutsionnogo Suda RF [“There is nothing more important than the little things”, or The problem of execution of decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation]. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.33, no.1, pp.183–206. (In Russian).
Grimm D. (2019) What Exactly Is Political about Constitutional Adjudication? In: Landfried C. (ed.) Judicial Power: How Constitutional Courts Affect Political Transformations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.26–32.
Harel A. (2024) The Power of the Israeli Court to Invalidate Basic Laws: A Jurisprudential Account. Jurídica Ibero, vol.8, no.16, pp.49–72.
Korstens G. (2021) Sudy i verkhovenstvo prava: vzglyad iz Niderlandov [Courts and the rule of law: a view from the Netherlands], D.Shabel'nikov (transl.), Moscow; Chelyabinsk: Sotsium. (In Russian).
Lienen C. (2023) Shaped by the Nuanced Constitution: A Critique of Common Law Constitutional Rights, Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Nechaeva Zh.V. (2007) Effektivnost' ispolneniya resheniy Konstitutsionnogo Suda RF: problemy teorii i praktiki: Dis. … kand. yurid. nauk [Effectiveness of the implementation of decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation: problems of theory and practice: Cand. in law sci. diss.], Tomsk. (In Russian).
Park R. (2016) Is the Political Question Doctrine Jurisdictional or Prudential? UC Irvine Law Review, vol.6, no.2, pp.255–280.
Rice D. (2018) Placing the Ball in Congress’ Court: Supreme Court Requests for Congressional Action. American Politics Research, vol.47, no.4, pp.803–831.
Sajó A., Uitz R. (2017) The Constitution of Freedom: An Introduction to Legal Constitutionalism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Saunders C., Stone A. (2018) The High Court of Australia. In: Jakab A., Dyevre A., Itzcovich G. (eds.) Comparative Constitutional Reasoning, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.36–74.
Segal J.A., Westerland C., Lindquist S.A. (2011) Congress, the Supreme Court, and Judicial Review: Testing a Constitutional Separation of Powers Model. American Journal of Political Science, vol.55, no.1, pp.89–104.