Available in Russian
Author: Ekaterina Diyachenko
DOI: 10.21128/2226-2059-2022-3-50-74
Keywords: judicial discretion; Court of Justice of the European Union; Court of Justice of the European Free Trade Area; Andean Tribunal of Justice; Caribbean Court of Justice; Court of the Eurasian Economic Union; judicial dialogue; precedents
Argumentation is the basis of the activity of a judicial body. The influence of a judicial act on law enforcement practice depends on the depth and persuasiveness of argumentation. Judicial reasoning is extremely important in the exercise of judicial discretion, which requires a detailed justification of the reasons for choosing one of the legal options for resolving the dispute. The reasoning is of particular importance for the courts of integration organizations, since the interpretation of legal norms carried out by them affects not only the activities of supranational institutions but also of domestic law enforcement. The practice of courts of integration organizations demonstrates the characteristics of the methods of argumentation used by them, such as an argument based on the utility of an action, an appeal to the legal positions of other international courts, and case-based argumentation. Based on an analysis of general approaches to judicial argumentation, a conclusion is formulated about the inseparable connection between argumentation, interpretation, and proof. Ways of argumentation are considered as a particular manifestation of the methods of interpretation. Using examples of the practice of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Courts of the Andean and Caribbean Communities, and the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union, general conclusions are made about the meaning and features of the argumentation based on the practice of other international courts and on their own legal positions formulated in earlier judicial acts. Referring to the approaches of other international courts is, on the one hand, a way to enrich one’s own practice by borrowing legal structures or models of legal argumentation, and on the other hand, it is a tool to enhance the persuasiveness of adopted judicial acts. References to the practice of other international courts make it possible not only to understand the arguments in a particular case, but also to provide an opportunity to assess the position of the integration court in the broad context of other judicial bodies. Case-based reasoning helps to ensure the stability, predictability, and continuity of judicial practice. Departure from precedent requires a detailed explanation and can be expressed by reference to different factual circumstances and by more persuasive reasoning.
About the author: Ekaterina Diyachenko – Canditate of Sciences (Ph.D.) in Law, Counsellor to a Judge of the Eurasian Economic Union Court, Minsk, Belarus; Senior Researcher of the International Law Sector of the Institute of State and Law, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia.
Citation: Diyachenko E. (2022) Raby proshlogo, despoty budushchego? Pretsedent kak forma argumentatsii v sudakh integratsionnykh ob’edineniy [Slave of the past, tyrant of the future? Judicial precedent as a form of legal argumentation in the case-law of integration courts]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 50–74. (In Russian).
References
Alexy R. (1989) A Theory of Legal Argumentation: The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Alexy R. (2000) On the Structure of Legal Principles. Ratio Juris, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 294–304.
Barak A. (1999) Sudeyskoe usmotrenie [Judicial discretion], Moscow: Norma. (In Russian).
Barceló J.J. (1997) Precedents in European Community Law. In: MacCormick D.N., Summers R.S. (eds.) Interpreting Precedents: A Comparative Study, Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 407–436.
Baudenbacher C. (2004) The EFTA Court: An Actor in the European Judicial Dialogue. Fordham International Law Journal, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 353–391.
Baudenbacher C. (2008) The EFTA Court, the ECJ, and the Latter’s Advocates General – A Tale of Judicial Dialogue. In: Arnull A., Eeckhout P., Tridimas T. (eds.) Continuity and Change in EU Law: Essays in Honour of Sir Francis Jacobs, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 90–122.
Bengoetxa J. (1993) The Legal Reasoning of the European Court of Justice: Towards a European Jurisprudence, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Brewer S. (1996) Exemplary Reasoning: Semantics, Pragmatics, and the Rational Force of Legal Argument by Analogy. Harvard Law Review, vol. 109, no. 5, pp. 923–1028.
Bustamante T., Dahlman Ch. (2015) Argument Types and Fallacies in Legal Argumentation, Cham; New York: Springer.
Canor I. (1998) The Limits of Judicial Discretion in the European Court of Justice: Security and Foreign Affairs Issues, Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Chayka K.L. (2018) Mezhdunarodno-pravovye podkhody v praktike Suda Evraziyskogo ekonomicheskogo soyuza [International legal approaches in the practice of the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union]. Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava, no. 11, pp. 138–151. (In Russian).
De Witte B. (2011) The Use of the ECHR and Convention Case Law by the European Court of Justice. In: Popelier P, van de Heyning C.J., van Nuffel P. (eds.) Human Rights Protection in the European Legal Order: The Interaction Between the European and the National Courts, Antwerp: Intersentia, pp. 17–34.
Diyachenko E. (2019) Metody tolkovaniya v praktike Suda Evraziyskogo ekonomicheskogo soyuza [Methods of interpretation in the case-law of the Eurasian Economic Union Court]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 77–92. (In Russian).
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).
Dworkin R. (1978) Taking Rights Seriously, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Dworkin R. (1986) Law’s Empire, London: Fontana.
Dyachenko E.B., Entin K.V. (2021) Rol’ konsul’tativnykh zaklyucheniy Suda EAES v razvitii prava konkurentsii Evraziyskogo ekonomicheskogo soyuza [The role of the EAEU Court’s advisory opinions in development of the Eurasian Economic Union’s competition law]. Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki, no. 4, pp. 177–204. (In Russian).
Eckes C. (2014) The Court of Justice’s Participation in the Judicial Discourse: Theory and Practice. In: Cremona M., Thies A. (eds.) The European Court of Justice and External Relations Law: Constitutional Challenges, Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 183–210.
Entin K. (2021) Rol’ mezdunarodnykh dogovorov i mezdunarodnogo obychnogo prava v pravoporyadke ES i EAES [The role of international agreements and international customary law in the EU and EAEU legal orders]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 102–130. (In Russian).
Entin K. (2022) Obshchie printsipy prava integratsionnykh ob’edineniy kak taynoe oruzhie Suda ES i Suda EAES [General principles of integration law as a secret weapon of the CJEU and of the Eurasian Economic Union Court]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 64–83. (In Russian).
Entin K., Pirker B. (2020) Svobodnoe dvizhenie lits v EAES: mezhdu Civis Eurasiaticus i Homo Oeconomicus [Free movement of people in the EAEU: between Civis Eurasiaticus and Homo Oeconomicus]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 79–96. (In Russian).
Feteris E.T. (2017) Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation: A Survey of Theories on the Justification of Judicial Decisions, Dordrecht; New York: Springer.
Gadzhiev Kh.I. (2021) Vliyanie pravovoy argumentatsii na effektivnost’ mezhdunarodnogo i natsional’nogo pravosudiya [The impact of legal argumentation on the effectiveness of international and national justice]. Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava, no. 6, pp. 148–161. (In Russian).
Hart H.M., Sacks A.M. (1958) The Legal Process: Basic Problems in the Making and Application of Law, Cambridge, MA: Tentative Edition.
Helfer L.R., Alter K.J. (2010) Nature or Nurture? Judicial Lawmaking in the European Court of Justice and the Andean Tribunal of Justice. International Organization, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 563–592.
Jacob M.A. (2016) Precedents and Case-Based Reasoning in the European Court of Justice. Unfinished Business, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jacobs F.G. (2003) Judicial Dialogue and the Cross-Fertilization of Legal Systems: The European Court of Justice. Texas International Law Journal, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 547–556.
Jansen H. (2005) E Contrario Reasoning: The Dilemma of the Silent Legislator. Argumentation, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 485–496.
Krommendijk J. (2015) The Use of ECtHR Case Law by the Court of Justice after Lisbon: The View of Luxembourg Insiders. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 812–835.
Lenaerts K., Gutiérrez-Fonz J.A. (2013) To Say What the Law of the EU Is: Methods of Interpretation of the European Court of Justice: EUI Working Paper AEL 2013/9. Available at: https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/28339/AEL_2013_09_DL.pdf (accessed: 22.07.2022).
MacCormick D.N., Summers R.S. (1991) Interpreting Statutes: A Comparative Study, Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing Company.
Pirker B., Entin K. (2019) Bosman’s Second Life? The Eurasian Economic Union Court and the Free Movement of Professional Athletes. Legal Issues of Economic Integration, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 129–148.
Rosas A. (2007) The European Court of Justice in Context: Forms and Patterns of Judicial Dialogue. European Journal of Legal Studies, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 121–136.
Schauer F. (1991) Playing by the Rules. A Philosophical Examination of Rule-Based Decision Making in Law and in Life, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Siltala R. (2000) A Theory of Precedent: From Analytical Positivism to a Post-Analytical Philosophy of Law, Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Siltala R. (2011) Law, Truth, and Reason: A Treatise on Legal Argumentation, Dordrecht; New York: Springer.
Smbatyan A.S. (2012) Resheniya organov mezhdunarodnogo pravosudiya v sisteme mezhdunarodnogo publichnogo prava [International justice in international law], Мoscow: Statut. (In Russian).
Walton D. (2011) Legal Reasoning and Argumentation. In: Bongiovanni G., Postema G., Rotolo A., Sartor G., Walton D. (eds.) Handbook of Legal Reasoning and Argumentation, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 47–75.