Available in Russian
DOI: 10.21128/2226-2059-2025-1-3-39
Author: Andrey Medushevsky
Keywords: margin of appreciation; international law legitimacy; international and national courts; judicial interpretation; proportionality principle; European consensus, counter-limits doctrine; judicial activism; politics of law
One of the ideas shared by prevailing majority of the expert community is the conclusion about coming crisis of the legitimacy of international law. This conclusion is the understandable reaction to new regressive developments: the growing methodological challenge of legal relativism; obvious prevalence of the legal fragmentation over unification in the globalized world, degradation of international relations and legal communications. The international consensus formed after the World War II, which became the basis of human rights theory and practice, today seems to be expired, but a new one is still not achieved. A part of the problem is the decomposition of the whole system of international justice as a powerful, effective and neutral instrument of international conflict-solution and non-partisan mediator between different international actors. This results in a growing level of the legal uncertainty; open controversy between international, transnational and national courts over jurisdiction, influence and power; competing doctrines and interpretations of the international treatises and human rights, promotion of judicial activism as reaction to political power vacuum. All these developments make it important to pinpoint the changing place of judicial discretion and interpretation as a form and component of political power in relation to such key topics as methodology of legal interpretation, proportionality principle, European consensus, margin of appreciation, principle resistance, and their changing judicial treatment in a very complex political atmosphere of different global regions. That function of judicial activism in different areas of the world obviously plays compensatory role and fills in political power vacuum on international level, the absence of common understandings, rules and strategies of legal treatment, providing, thus, more disproportions to universal interpretation of the adopted international standards, while using political arguments dressed as law. This does not mean, of course, that international judicial interpretation is the same as political interpretation, but it makes it clear how necessary it is for important international players to reach a renovated consensus on the meaning of norms, their etymologic framework and methods of cognitive disputes solution. International courts are the most important institute in achieving this goal. This target-oriented approach, as author believes, demonstrates the acute importance of a new policy of law — coordinated judicial activity of international courts in search of the lost common sense of values, treatises and norms, capable to inspire renaissance of global constitutionalism ideal in legal diplomacy and international jurisprudence. Among important author’s conclusions is an idea of a need to form a new international consensus in order to create common legal agenda, which would be capable of giving new life to old principles. That underlines importance of a new program of the international legal politics, which is critical in order to establish a common target-oriented international justice.
Citation:
Medushevsky A. (2025) Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie na rasput'e: sudebnoe usmotrenie kak forma politicheskoy vlasti [International justice on a crossroads: judicial discretion as a form of political power]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.15, no.1, pp.3–39. (In Russian).
References
(2012) Political Will and Multilateral Cooperation in International Law: An Interview with Richard Goldstone. Yale Journal of International Affairs, 22 February. Available at: https://www.yalejournal.org/publications/political-will-and-multilateral-cooperation-in-international-justice (accessed: 27.01.2025).
(2017) Expertnoe obsuzhdenie postanovleniya Mezhdunarodnogo Suda OON o primenenii vremennykh mer po delu Ukraina protiv Rossii [Expert discussion of the Order of the International Court of Justice on indication of provisional measures in the case of Ukraine v. Russia]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.7, no.3, pp.119–135. (In Russian).
Allan T. (2013) Svoboda, ravenstvo, zakonnost' [Freedom, equality, legality]. In: Zor'kin V.D., Barenboym P.D. (eds.) Doktriny pravovogo gosudarstva i verkhovenstva prava v sovremennom mire [The legal state and the rule of law doctrines in modern world], Moscow: Yustitsinform, pp.396–418. (In Russian).
Andreev L.N. (1979) Pervyy gonorar [First fee]. In: Andreev L.N. Povesti i rasskazy [Novels and stories], Moscow: Khudozhestvennaya literatura, pp.73–86. (In Russian).
Barroso B.S. (2023) Beyond the Principle of Proportionality: Controlling the Restriction of Rights under Factual Uncertainty. Oslo Law Review, vol.9, no.2, pp.74–91. Available at: https://www.idunn.no/doi/10.18261/olr.9.2.1 (accessed: 27.01.2025).
Bernardino A.L. (2024) The Politics of Facts before the International Court of Justice. Center for International Law. National University of Singapore, 23 October. Available at: https://cil.nus.edu.sg/blogs/the-politics-of-facts-before-the-international-court-of-justice/ (accessed: 27.01.2027).
Bianchi A., Peat D., Windsor M. (eds.) (2018) Interpretation in International Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Blokhin P.D., Kryazhkova O.N. (2015) Kak zashchitit' svoi prava v Konstitutsionnom Sude: Prakticheskoe rukovodstvo po obrashcheniyu s zhaloboy v Konstitutsionnyy Sud Rossii [How to protect their rights in the Constitutional Court: Practical guide on the applying of a complaint to the Constitutional Court of Russia], Moscow: Institut prava i publichnoy politiki. (In Russian).
Von Bogdandy A., Grabenwarter C., Huber P.M. (2022) Konstitutsionnaya yurisdiktsiya v evropeyskom pravovom prostranstve [Constitutional jurisdiction in the European legal space]. Daydzhest publichnogo prava Geydel'bergskogo Instituta Maksa Planka, vol.11, no.1, pp.1–38. (In Russian).
Bowring B. (2021) Degradatsiya mezhdunarodnogo pravovogo poryadka? Reabilitatsiya prava i vozmozhnost' politiki [Degradation of the international legal order? Rehabilitation of law and possibility of politics], Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie. (In Russian).
Cerar M. (2009) The Relationship Between Law and Politics. Annual Survey of International & Comparative Law, vol.15, no.1, pp.19–41.
Chagas C.A. (2022) Balancing Competences and Margin of Appreciation: Structuring Deference at the ECtHR. Vienna Journal on International Constitutional Law, 25 February. Available at: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/icl-2021-0009/html (accessed: 27.01.2025).
D’Aspremont J. (2019) Tri yurista-mezhdunarodnika v zerkal'nom zale [Three international lawyers in a hall of mirrors]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.9, no.4, pp.21–38. (In Russian).
Danthine J.-P. (2017) Subsidiarity: The Forgotten Concept at the Core of Europe’s Existential Crisis. VoxEU, 12 April. Available at: https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/subsidiarity-forgotten-concept-core-europes-existential-crisis (accessed: 27.01.2025).
Diyachenko E. (2020) Sudebnyy aktivizm i ego rol' v praktike mezhdunarodnykh sudov [Judicial activism and its role in case-law of international courts]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.10, no.2, pp.103–125. (In Russian).
Dolzhikov A. (2013) “Gordost' i predubezhdenie”: sorazmernost' polnogo konstitutsionnogo zapreta zaklyuchyonnym golosovat' v Rossii. Postanovlenie Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka ot 4 iyulya 2013 goda [“Pride and prejudice”: proportionality of blanket constitutional ban on the right to vote for detained persons in Russia. Judgment of the European Court of human rights of 4 July 2013]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.3, no.4, pp.11–31. (In Russian).
Dzehtsiarou K., O’Meara N. (2014) «Konsul'tativnye zaklyucheniya 2»: reformirovanie kompetentsii Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka po vyneseniyu konsul'tativnykh zaklyucheniy [Advisory opinions 2: reforming advisory jurisdiction of the European Court of human rights]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.4, no.2, pp.71–85. (In Russian).
Edege E., Sutch P. (2013) The Politics of International Law and International Justice, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Filatova M. (2013) Konflikty konstitutsionnykh i nadnatsional'nykh norm: sposoby preodoleniya (na primere Evropeyskogo Soyuza i pravovykh sistem gosudarstv-chlenov ES) [Relationship between constitutional and supranational law: ways to resolve the conflict (example of European Union and national legal systems in EU member states]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.3, no.4, pp.94–106. (In Russian).
Filatova M. (2016) Sootnoshenie pravoporyadkov i ierarkhiya mezhdunarodnykh i natsional'nykh norm: novye voprosy i podkhody k ikh resheniyu v praktike Konstitutsionnogo Suda RF [Relations of legal orders and hierarchy of international and national norms: new issues and solutions in the Russian Constitutional Court’s case-law]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.6, no.3, pp.88–100. (In Russian).
Follesdal A., Tsereteli N. (2016) The Margin of Appreciation in Europe and Beyond. The International Journal of Human Rights, vol.20, no.8, pp.1055–1057.
Harris D., O’Boyle M., Warbrik C. (eds.) (2017) Pravo Evropeyskoy konventsii po pravam cheloveka [Law of the European Convention on human rights], V.A.Vlasikhin (transl.), Moscow: Razvitie pravovykh sistem. (In Russian).
Hernández G. (2024) High Politics and the International Court of Justice. Centre for International Law. National University of Singapore, 17 October. Available at: https://cil.nus.edu.sg/blogs/high-politics-and-the-international-court-of-justice/ (accessed: 27.01.2025).
Hjorthen F.D. (2022) International Justice. Oxford Research Encyclopedias. Politics, 24 February. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.2010 (accessed: 27.01.2025).
Ihering R. (1881) Tsel' v prave. Tom 1 [Objective in law. Vol.1], V.R.Litskoy (transl.), N.V.Murav'ev (transl.), N.F.Deryuzhinskiy (transl.), Saint-Petersburg: Izdanie N.V.Murav'eva. (In Russian).
Ispolinov A. (2016) Pretsedent v praktike Suda Evropeyskogo Soyuza [Precedent in the jurisprudence of the European Union Court of Justice]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.6, no.3, pp.64–77. (In Russian).
Ispolinov A. (2016) Sudebnyy aktivizm i sudebnoe normotvorchestvo Suda Evropeyskogo Soyuza [Judicial activism and judicial rule-making of the Court of Justice of the European Union]. Mezhdunarodnoye pravosudie, vol.6, no.1, pp.81–94. (In Russian).
Jorgensen M. (2024) Comparative International Legal Policy: National Political Approaches towards International Legal Order, Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law & International Law (MPIL) Research Paper No.2024-03. 24 January. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4705207 (accessed: 27.01.2025).
Kapotas P., Tzevelekos V.P. (eds.) (2019) Building Consensus on European Consensus: Judicial Interpretation on Human Rights in Europe and Beyond, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kelly J.P. (2008) International Law and the Shrinking Space for Politics in Developing Countries, Law and Rights: Global Perspectives on Constitutionalism and Governance, Widener Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No.08-31. 10 March. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1104694 (accessed: 27.01.2025).
Khoss K. (2016) Kogda molchanie — zoloto: o dostoinstvakh sudebnogo ogranicheniya v svete praktiki Mezhdunarodnogo Suda v otnoshenii ponyatiya “interes pravovogo kharaktera” [When less is more: on the virtues of judicial restraint in light of the Court’s jurisprudence on the notion of “interest of a legal nature”]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.6, no.1, pp.3–15. (In Russian).
Kissinger H. (2021) Mirovoy poryadok [World order], Moscow: AST. (In Russian).
Klabbers J. (2013) How Interpretation Makes International Law: On Semantic Change and Normative Twists. European Journal of International Law, vol.24, no.2, pp.718–722.
Kmiec K.D. (2004) The Origin and Current Meanings of “Judicial Activism”. California Law Review, vol.92, no.5, pp.1441–1477.
Kolodkin R. (2021) Normativnye predlozheniya Mezhdunarodnogo tribunala po morskomu pravu [Normative propositions of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.11, no.3, pp.3–18. (In Russian).
Koskenniemi M. (2005) From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kovler A. (2010) Stsilla i Kharibda Evropeyskogo Suda: subsidiarnost' ili pravovoy aktivizm? [Scylla and Charybdis of the European Court: subsidiarity or legal activism?]. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.19, no.6, pp.90–100. (In Russian).
Kovler A. (2013) “Moral'nyy suverenitet” pered litsom “gosudarstvennogo suvereniteta” v evropeyskoy sisteme prav cheloveka [Moral sovereignty in the face of “state sovereignty” in the European system of protection of human rights]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.3, no.3, pp.52–63. (In Russian).
Kovler A., Fokin E. (2021) Venetsiantskaya komissiya i Evropeyskiy Sud po pravam cheloveka: tochki soprikosnoveniya [The Venice Commission and the European Court of Human Rights: common grounds]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.11, no.2, pp.72–92. (In Russian).
Krasikov D. (2016) Konventsionno-konstitutsionnуe kollizii i illyuzii: chto lezhit v osnove vozrazheniya Konstitutsionnogo Suda Rossii v adres Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka? [Collisions and illusions amid the Convention and the Constitution: what does underlie the Russian Constitutional Court’s objection to the European Court of Human Rights?]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.6, no.3, pp.101–117. (In Russian).
De Londras F., Degtyarev K. (2013) “A., B. i C. protiv Irlandii”: vozniknovenie blokiruyushchego vnutrigosudarstvennogo konsensusa [A., B. and C. v. Ireland: the emergence of trumping internal consensus]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.3, no.1, pp.23–35. (In Russian).
Maldonado D.B. (ed.) (2013) Constitutionalism of the Global South: The Activist Tribunals of India, South Africa, and Colombia, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marshall W.P. (2002) Conservatives and the Seven Sins of Judicial Activism. University of Colorado Law Review, vol.73, no.4, pp.1217–1255.
McBride J. (2020) Covid-19 i Evropeyskaya Konventsiya po pravam cheloveka [Covid-19 and the European Convention on Human Rights]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.10, no.2, pp.3–17. (In Russian).
Medushevsky A. (2022) Konferentsiya o budushchem Evropy: vozmozhnye stsenarii gryadushchey evropeyskoy perestroyki [The Conference on the Future of Europe: possible scenarios of the forthcoming European Perestroika]. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.31, no.1, pp.14–42. (In Russian).
Medushevsky A. (2022) Konstitutsionnyy Sud kak politicheskiy institut v rossiyskoy sisteme vlasti: znachenie, fukntsii, evolyutsiya doktriny i legitimiruyushchikh osnovaniy [Constitutional Court as an element of Russia’s political system: its role, functions, evolution of doctrinal approaches and legitimacy]. In: Medushevsky A. (ed.) Konstitutsionnyy Sud Rossii: osmyslenie opyta [Russia’s Constitutional Court: rethinking its experience], Moscow: Tsentr konstitutsionnykh issledovaniy. (In Russian).
Medushevsky A. (2022) Naskol'ko universal'ny “universal'nye standarty” prav cheloveka: pereotsenka kriticheskoy shkoly mezhdunarodnogo prava [How universalized are “universal standards” of human rights: the critical school of international law reappraised]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.12, no.1, pp.3–31. (In Russian).
Medushevsky A. (2024) Pravo v epokhu kognitivnykh voyn: garantii svobody mysli pered vyzovom novykh tekhnologiy manipulirovaniya soznaniem [Law in the epoch of cognitive warfare: how to protect constitutionalism from challenge of the new manipulative technologies?]. Sravnitel'noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.33, no.1, pp.110–137. (In Russian).
Medushevsky A.N. (2023) Global'nyy konstitutsionalizm: protsessy integratsii i fragmentatsii v sozdanii novogo mirovogo poryadka [Global constitutionalism: integration and fragmentation processes in the creation of a new world order], Moscow: Direct-Media. (In Russian).
Neshataeva T. (2017) Sud Evraziyskogo ekonomicheskogo soyuza: ot pravovoy pozitsii k deystvuyushchemu pravu [The Court of the Eurasian Economic Union: from legal opinion to the effective law]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.7, no.2, pp.64–79. (In Russian).
Nussberger A. (2013) «Konsensus» kak element argumentatsii Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka [“Consensus” as an element in the argumentation of the European Court of human rights]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.3, no.1, pp.17–22. (In Russian).
Nussberger A. (2020) Evropa, tvoi prava cheloveka [Europe, your human rights]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.10, no.3, pp.3–9. (In Russian).
Nussberger A. (2022) Evropeyskiy Sud po pravam cheloveka [The European Court of Human Rights]. Moscow. (In Russian).
Odermatt J., Petkova B. (2024) A Political Question Doctrine at the International Court of Justice? Blog of the European Journal of International Law, 26 February. Available at: https://www.ejiltalk.org/a-political-question-doctrine-at-the-international-court-of-justice/ (accessed: 27.01.2025).
Oganesian T. (2021) Evropeyskiy Sud po pravam cheloveka “v poiskakh utrachennogo vremeni”: evolyutivnoe tolkovanie [The European Court of human rights in search of lost time: an evolutionary interpretation]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.11, no.3, pp.75–104. (In Russian).
Oganesian T. (2024) Evolyutivnoe tolkovanie: razmyshleniya ob evolyutsii, morali i sloszhnosti konsensusa [Evolutive interpretation: reflections on evolution, morality, and the complexity of consensus]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.14, no.3, pp.29–53. (In Russian).
Peters A. (2023) Proportionality as Global Constitutional Principle. In: Lang A.F., Wiener A. (eds.) Handbook on Global Constitutionalism, Cheltenham; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, pp.346–362.
Petrazhitskiy L.I. (2000) Teoriya prava i gosudarstva v svyazi s teoriey nravstvennosti [The theory of law and state in connection with the theory of morality], Saint-Petersburg: Lan'. (In Russian).
Podoplelova O. (2018) Dela o gendernoy discriminatsii v praktike Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka: otsenka effektivnosti podkhodov [Gender discrimination jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights: judging the effectiveness]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.8, no.3, pp.36–45. (In Russian).
Punzhin S. (2017) Protsessual'noe pravo Mezhdunarodnogo Suda OON: tolkovanie resheniya [Procedual law of the International Court of Justice: interpretation of a decision]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.7, no.2, pp.49–63. (In Russian).
Rikhter I., Shuppert G.F. (2000) Sudebnaya praktika po administrativnomu pravu [Judicial practice on administrative law], V.N.Kuznetsov, D.Mironova (transl.), L.O.Ivanov (ed.), Moscow: Yurist. (In Russian).
Rivers J. (2009) Proportionality and Discretion in International and European Law. In: Tsagourias N. (ed.) Transnational Constitutionalism, Cambridge University Press, pp.107–132.
Sloss D., Van Alstine M. (2015) International Law in Domestic Courts, Santa Clara, CA: Santa Clara University School of Law. Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/facpubs/889/ (accessed: 27.01.2025).
Soboleva A. (2017) Sud'i Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka kak “muzhi-dialektiki”: ritoricheskiy kontekst i platonovskaya teoriya imenovaniya [Judges of the European Court of Human Rights as dialecticians: rhetorical context and Plato’s theory of naming]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.7, no.3, pp.34–46. (In Russian).
Sorokina E. (2021) “Sud” ili “tribunal” kak sub'ekt preyuditsial'noy protsedury: avtonomnoe ponimanie v praktike Suda ES [Concept of a court or tribunal under the reference for a preliminary ruling: the Court of Justice of the European Union practice]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.11, no.3, pp.105–126. (In Russian).
Suami T., Peters A., Vanoverbeke D., Kumm M. (eds.) (2020) Global Constitutionalism from European and East Asian Perspectives, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Syrunina T. (2012) Lautsi (Lautsi) i drugie protiv Italii. Postanovlenie Bol'shoy Palaty Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka ot 18 marta 2011 goda [Lautsi and others v. Italy. The judgment of the European Court of human rights of 18 March 2011]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.2, no.1, pp.20–24. (In Russian).
Timofeev M.T., Sekretaryova N.M. (eds.) (2019) “Sovest' Evropy” v deystvii: 350 resheniy Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka [“Conscience of Europe” in action: 350 decisions of the European Court of human rights], Moscow. (In Russian).
Tolstykh V. (2018) “Printsipial'noe soprotivlenie” resheniyam Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka v svete kriticheskoy teorii [“Principled resistance” against European Court of Human rights judgments in the light of critical theory]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.8, no.1, pp.79–89. (In Russian).
Trsten'yak V. (2012) Printsip verkhovenstva v prave Evropeyskogo Soyuza i rol' konstitutsionnykh sudov gosudarstv-chlenov [The legal system of the EU: the principle of primacy in EU law and the role of the constitutional courts of the member states]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.2, no.2, pp.54–65. (In Russian).
Tumanov V.A. (2001) Evropeyskiy Sud po pravam cheloveka. Ocherk organizatsii i deyatel'nosti, Moscow: Norma. (In Russian).
Tushnet M., Kochenov D. (eds.) (2023) Research Handbook on the Politics of Constitutional Law, Cheltenham; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Van den Herik L. (2017) Vazhnost' ustanovleniya faktov: vozvrashchayas' k kontseptsii rassledovaniya F.F.Martensa [The importance of finding facts: revising Fyodor Martens’ concept of inquiry]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.7, no.3, pp.24–33. (In Russian).
Ziemele I. (2018) European Consensus and International Law. In: van Aaken A., Motoc I. (eds.) The European Convention on Human Rights and General International Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.23–40.