Везде
The Role of the Court in Crisis Situations: Problems of Trust and Legitimacy
Table of contents
Abstract Estimate Publication content
References Comments
Share
QR
Metrics
The Role of the Court in Crisis Situations: Problems of Trust and Legitimacy
Abstract
PII
S1991-32220000622-3-1
DOI
10.61205/S199132220030813-0
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Khanlar Gadjiev 
ORCID: 0000-0001-6002-6075
Occupation: Chief Researcher, Center of Judicial Law
Affiliation: Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation
Address: Moscow, Russia
Edition
Volume 20 No. 4
Pages
71-82
Abstract

A comparative analysis of limitations on rights in crisis conditions indicates that the common approach of courts is to balance the effective functioning of state institutions with the protection of human rights and freedoms. The main task is to properly define a fair balance between competing demands of freedom and security, which can be successful in legal systems with flexible models of limitations and responsible judges who assess the nature of limitations in extreme conditions and can independently and impartially exercise judicial control. Every crisis requires the state to take prompt measures to protect the lives and health of people, and this is directly related to the activation of all branches of government, with the main burden falling on the executive power. At the same time, every crisis puts the legal system to the test of its true commitment to human rights. Even though restrictions seem to be the most popular tool, narrowing the scope of rights may be justified in cases where the protection of vital values cannot be achieved otherwise. The approach chosen by the state must be characterised by its legitimacy, respect for fundamental freedoms, and be used only in strictly necessary cases. The task of judges during a crisis is to skillfully demonstrate restraint and activism, guided by the principles of certainty, proportionality, and balance of rights. Modern technologies contribute to facilitating access to justice and in this sense, as paradoxical as it may sound, crisis situations serve to mobilise the rational use of opportunities and promote innovation in legal proceedings.

Keywords
restriction of rights, freedom, security, fair balance, judicial control, certainty, proportionality, fundamental rights
Date of publication
29.08.2024
Number of purchasers
3
Views
49
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Cite Download pdf

To download PDF you should pay the subscribtion

Publication text not found

References



Additional sources and materials

1. Bilchitz D. Socio-economic rights, economic crisis, and legal doctrine. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 2014, vol. 12, iss. 3. 
2. Bonnan-White J. Avoiding the emperor’s prophecy: a case for the primacy of emergency management in criminal justice and human security studies. Contemporary Justice Review, 2015, vol. 18, iss. 3. 
3. Constant B. Écrits politiques. Paris, 1982. 
4. Corradetti C., Pollicino O. The “War” Against Covid-19: State of Exception, State of Siege, or (Constitutional) Emergency Powers?: The Italian Case in Comparative Perspective. German Law Journal, 2021, vol. 22, iss. 6. 1. 
5. Dworkin R. Justice in Robes. Cambridge, 2006. 
6. Dworkin R. Law’s Empire. Cambridge, 1986. 
7. Becker U., Poulou A. (ed.). European Welfare State Constitutions after the Financial Crisis. Oxford, 2020.
8. Fabbrini F. The Role of the Judiciary in Times of Emergency: Judicial Review of Counter-Terrorism Measures in the United States Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice. Boston, 2015. 
9. Garrison A. H. Supreme Court Jurisprudence in Times of National Crisis, Terrorism, and War. A Historical Perspective. Lexington Books, 2011. 
10. Harris D. et al. Law of the European Convention on Human Rights. 2nd ed. Oxford, 2009. 
11. Jessup P. Transnational Law. New Haven, 1956. 
12. Karaiskou V. Facing the Future through the Light of the Past. In: Nyiri K. (ed.). Facing the Future, Facing the Screen. Budapest, 2022. 
13. Locke J. Two Treatises of Government. London, 1823. 
14. MacCormick N. Rhetoric and Rule of Law: A Theory of Legal Reasoning. Oxford, 2005. 
15. Mariner W. K. Shifting Standards of Judicial Review during the Coronavirus Pandemic in the United States. German Law Journal, 2021, vol. 22, iss. 6. 
16. McCormick N. Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory. Oxford, 1978. 
17. Montesquieu Ch. L’esprit des lois. Paris, 1875. 
18. Parmet W. E. Dangerous Perspectives: The Perils of Individualized, Public Health Problem. Journal of Legal Medicine, 2009, vol. 30, no. 1. 
19. Wildhaler L. The European Court of Human Rights, 1998—2006. History, Achievements, Reform. N. P. Engel, 2006. 
20. Zorkin V. D. The Constitutional Court of Russia: doctrine and practice. Moscow, 2018. (In Russ.) 
21. Khabrieva T. Y. (ed.). Legal and Institutional Framework of Emergency Management. Moscow, 2016. 528 p. (In Russ.) 
22. Chicherin B. N. Common state law. Moscow, 2006. (In Russ.) 
23. Burdina E. V., Zuev S. V. (eds). Electronic justice. Moscow, 2021. (In Russ.)

Comments

No posts found

Write a review
Translate