Available in Russian
Author: Dmitry Dedov
DOI: 10.21128/1812-7126-2025-3-149-159
Keywords: judicial discretion; margin of appreciation; legal system; judicial power
In the article, the author reflects on the contradictory positions of the highest national and international courts and the deterioration of the quality of their decisions, which leads to a conclusion about threats to the rule of law. Such deviations from the rules of jurisprudence can be seen in the field of the formation and change of legal positions on the application of the statute of limitations, the recognition of subjective rights to abortion, the formation of international customs in relation to the jurisdiction of the state. The author pays special attention to the arguments contained in the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Bouarfa v. Mayorkas. The totality of all legal features allows us to conclude that ignoring the established elements of legal systems occurs due to the insufficiently complete transfer of accumulated knowledge and experience in the field of jurisprudence between generations, or even due to the denial of such experience and knowledge as a result of the transformation of a civilizational nature. Modern law is a very complex phenomenon that includes a whole range of principles, doctrines, approaches, theoretical concepts, methodological guidelines, and types of interpretation of legal norms. Choosing in favor of some of them and ignoring others often depends on individual legal preferences, the peculiarities of the legal thinking of judges or the majority of judges who are members of the collegial composition of a judicial body. This is becoming another factor affecting the impartiality of judges.
About the author: Dmitry Dedov – Doctor of Sciences in Law, Professor of the Constitutional and Municipal Law Department, Law Faculty, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Retired Judge of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, Judge of the European Court of Human Rights (2013–2022), Moscow, Russia.
Citation:
Dedov D. (2024) Strukturnye defekty pravovykh pozitsiy vysshikh sudov [Structural defects of the highest courts’ legal positions]. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.34, no.3, pp149–159. (In Russian).
References
Dedov D.I. (2004) Konflikt interesov [Conflict of interest], Moscow: Wolters Kluver. (In Russian).
Dedov D.I. (2023) Metodologiya prava 2.0 [Legal methodology 2.0], Moscow: Izdatel'skiy dom “Delo”. (In Russian).
Ginsburg D.H., Menashi S. (2016) Our Illiberal Administrative Law. New York University Journal of Law and Liberty, vol.10, no.2, pp.475–521.
Sheverdyaev S.N. (2020) Otrazhenie sovremennoy antikorruptsionnoy kul'tury v rossiyskom konstitutsionnom prave [Reflection of modern anti-corruption culture in Russian constitutional law], Moscow: Yustitsinform. (In Russian).
Tkachyov I., Kanaev P., Parfent'eva I., Vinogradova E. (2025) Putin poruchil rassmotret' vopros o srokakh davnosti pri deprivatizatsii. Est' neopredelennost', s kakogo momenta otschityvat' eti sroki [Putin has instructed to consider the issue of statutes of limitations for deprivatization. There is uncertainty as to when to start counting these time limits]. RBK, 15 January. Available at: https://www.rbc.ru/economics/15/01/2025/67869f8e9a79473d424bdfec (accessed: 11.06.2025). (In Russian).
Varaksin M. (2025) Natsionalizatsiya i iz'yatie imushchestva: chto bylo i chto budet [Nationalization and seizure of property: what has happened and what will happen]. Pravo.ru, 8 January. Available at: https://pravo.ru/story/256268/ (accessed: 11.06.2025). (In Russian).
Vermeule A. (2016) Law’s Abnegation: From Law’s Empire to the Administrative State, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vinnitskiy A.V., Kharinov I.N. (2020) Otmena v poryadke samokontrolya blagopriyatstvuyushchikh administrativnykh aktov [Cancellation of favourable administrative acts by way of self-control]. Elektronnoe prilozhenie k Rossiyskomu yuridicheskomu zhurnalu, no.6, pp.50–63. (In Russian).