Does the court think politically? Experience of the Constitutional Court of Russia

The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation is an institution of a dual political and legal nature, but the existence and admissibility of the political motives in the Court’s decisions are often questioned. This article offers a political analysis of a concrete judicial act - the Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation for the existence of political motivation in its legal justification. As an object of the analysis was chosen the Resolution meaningful for the legal and political sphere, which enshrines the right of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in certain cases to allow non-execution of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights made against Russia. The analysis of the judicial act was carried out within the framework of Michael Freeden’s theory of political thinking. Consistently testing the signs of political thinking highlighted by Freeden, the author comes to the conclusion that there are political motives in adopting the Resolution, which is due to the special status and role of the Constitutional Court in the political system of modern Russia. Making a final decision regarding the issue of the legal force of international legal acts, highlighting the principle of state sovereignty as a priority, demonstrating a conflict of interest between the Russian Federation and the European Court of Human Rights, striving to mobilize public support to the Resolution, empowering itself with an additional authority to decide on the enforceability of acts of the ECtHR and implementation of legal policy are signs of political thinking, which allow to make a conclusion about political motives of the Constitutional Court of Russia. Taken together, these features confirm the political nature of the Constitutional Court of Russia. The analysis shows that the theory of political thinking of Michael Frieden has a sufficient degree of universality to apply to different political concepts.

Майкл Фриден, политическое мышление, Конституционный суд России, политическая аргументация, аргументация судебных решений, Европейский суд по правам человека, Michael Freeden, political thinking theory, the Constitutional Court of Russia, political argumentation, argumentation of court’s decisions, European Court of Human Rights

1. Григорьев И.С. Политология судов: предмет и исследовательская программа // Политическая наука. - 2012. - № 3. - С. 258-275.

2. Гузикова М.О. К анализу политических концептов: методология Майкла Фридена // Современная наука: актуальные проблемы теории и практики. Серия: Гуманитарные науки. - 2016. - № 4. - С. 27-32.

3. Микиртумов И.Б. Аргументация и легитимность: дело Маркина // РАЦИО. ru. - 2015. - № 15. - С. 97-133.

4. Петров А.А. Правовое качество решений Конституционного суда Российской Федерации: постановка вопроса и некоторые практические проблемы // Сравнительное конституционное обозрение. - 2014. - № 2. - С. 95-110.

5. Соболева А.К. Топическая юриспруденция. - М.: Добросвет, 2002. - 225 с.

6. Соболева А. Ценностные ориентиры судебного решения: Валерий Дмитриевич Зорькин против Тамары Георгиевны Морщаковой // Новая юстиция. - 2009. - № 1. - С. 5-17.

7. Сунгуров А.Ю., Семикова А.Е. Юридическая политология, или Политология права: эскиз исследовательского поля // Общественные науки и современность. - 2017. - № 5. - С. 83-93.

8. Freeden M. The political theory of political thinking: the anatomy of a practice / M. Freeden. - Oxford; New York: Oxford univ. press, 2013. - 345 p.

9. Freeden M. Ideologies and Political Theory: A Conceptual Approach. - Oxford: Oxford univ. press, 1996. - 592 p.