Укр Eng
+380 (44) 278-58-91
Pravova derzhava. <span>Scientific articles yearbook</span>
  1. Home
  2.  ⇒ 
  3. “Pravova derzhava”. Issue 35 (2024)
  4.  ⇒ 
  5. Law-making, legal practice and legal uncertainty (methodological aspects of an interrelationship)

“Pravova derzhava”. Issue 35 (2024), pages 108–120.

DOI: 10.33663/0869-2491-2024-35-108-120

Kubko Ievhen
Law-making, legal practice and legal uncertainty (methodological aspects of an interrelationship)

The article scrutinizes the correlation between lawmaking and legal practice in Ukraine, in terms of ensuring legal certainty within the legal system. The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly reiterated that legal certainty is a crucial component of the rule of law. It is related both to the quality of laws and the quality of legal (judicial) practice. Legal uncertainty is a negative phenomenon that does not conform to the principles of the rule of law, and, accordingly, the European Convention on Human Rights. It is a result of lawmaking and legal (mainly judicial and administrative) practice. The state of legal uncertainty in certain legal domains and branches sometimes persists for a considerable period, which has a detrimental eff ect on the rights of legal entities and individuals as well as the effi ciency of legal regulation in general. Methodologically, lawmaking and legal practice are closely related, despite their distinct functional characteristics, which should be taken into account to avoid legal uncertainty. The objective of the study is to employ the most recent methodologies to eradicate any uncertainty in the legal framework of Ukraine, and to establish legal liability for lawmaking and other state entities for their failure to promptly eliminate legal uncertainty in the relevant legal domains. It is anticipated that the Ukrainian legal system will soon adopt a law on lobbying, which will facilitate certain modifi cations in legal regulations and potentially pose corruption risks. They may arise as a consequence of lobbying for legislation that creates legal uncertainty, which ought to be taken into account in law-making endeavors and legal practice. The article proposes defi nitions of categorical series for the concepts of lawmaking, rulemaking, rule drafting, law-making activity, and others that have functional diff erences. The article also aims to examine the issue of legal uncertainty taking into account contemporary global legal concepts such as «textualism» and «legal realism» that are still being debated in foreign literature.

Key words: lawmaking, legal practice, legal certainty, textualism, legal realism.

References

  1. Diya 97 v. Ukraine: ECHR Judgment, 21 October 2010 URL: https://hudoc.echr.coeint/?i=001-101189; Industrial Financial Consortium Investment Metallurgical Union v. Ukraine: ECHR Judgment, 26 June 2018 URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-184068.
  2. Rishennia u spravakh Rekvenyi v. Hungary [VP], zaiava № 25390/94, p. 34; Rotary v. Romania [VP], zaiava № 28341/95, p. 55; Maestri v. Italy [VP], zaiava № 39748/98, p. 30.
  3. Dyv. Kubko Ye. B. Mizhnarodni pravovi standarty v pravovii systemi Ukrainy. Almanakh prava. Pravova analityka: doktrynalni pidkhody ta haluzevi vymiry. Vypusk 9. Kyiv: In-t derzhavy i prava im. V. M. Koretskoho NAN Ukrainy, 2018, s. 23–28.
  4. Tut i dali poniattia «zakonodavstvo» vykorystovuietsia v rozuminni statti 9 Zakonu Ukrainy «Pro pravotvorchu diialnist», yakshcho ne bude zaznacheno inshe.
  5. Dyv. V. Tsvietkov, Ye. Kubko Konstytutsiino-pravovi zasady borotby z tendentsiieiu biurokratyzatsii derzhavnoho aparatu. Pravova systema Ukrainy: istoriia, stan ta perspektyvy: u 5t. Kharkiv: Pravo, 2008. T. 2: Konstytutsiini zasady pravovoi systemy Ukrainy i problemy yii vdoskonalennia / za zah. red. Yu. P. Bytiaka. s. 32–341.
  6. Pro vykorystannia deiakykh metodiv tekstualizmu dyv. Sharkova I. M. Dobrosovisna interpretatsiia (interpretatio ex bona fi de) za zakonodavstvom derzhav-chleniv YeS: komparatyvnyi analiz. Yurydychna Ukraina, 2021, № 8, s. 52–56.
  7. Karri Hinter, Pire Shasmin. Rozuminnia ta diia dyrektyv Yevropeiskoho Soiuzu. Pravo Ukrainy, 2023, № 4, s. 33-72.
  8. Topolievskyi R. B., Fedina N. V. Teoriia derzhavy i prava: navchalnyi posibnyk. Lviv: LvDUVS, 2020, s. 163; Zahalna teoriia prava. Akademichnyi kur: Pidruch. dlia stud. Kyiv: Yurinkom Inter, 2021, s. 576.
  9. Zahalna teoriia prava: pidruchnyk/za zah. red. M. I. Koziubry. Kyiv: Vaite, s. 215.
  10. Bouken H. J. M. Legal Realism and Legal Certainty / ARPS, Vo. 66, No. 4 (1980), pp. 469–485; David B. Wilkins, Legal Realism for Lawyers, Harvard Law Review, V. 104, No. 2 (Dec. 1990), pp. 468–524.
  11. Hanoch Dagan, «Lawmaking for Legal Realists» (December 2012). Tel Aviv University Law Faculty Papers. Working Paper 168, Dagan, Hanoch, «The Realist Conception of Law», Reconstructing American Legal Realism & Rethinking Private Law Theory (New York, 2013; online edn, Oxford Academic, 26 Sept. 2013).
  12. Benjamin Eidelson, Matthew C. Stephenson, «The Incompatibility of Substantive Canons and Textualism», Harvard Law Review, Vol. 137, Issue 2, Dec. 2023; Brian G. Slocum, Kevin Tobia, «The Linguistic and Substantive Canons», Harvard Law Review, Vol. 137, Issue 2, Dec. 2023.
  13. Dyv. postanovu Velykoi Palaty Verkhovnoho Sudu vid 29 chervnia 2021 roku u spravi № 916/28/1318 (provadzhennia № 12-71hs20).
  14. 14. Zaitseva A. Chastka uchasnyk hospodarskoho tovarystva yak obiekt spilnoi sumisnoi vlasnosti podruzhzhia. Sudovoyurydychna hazeta. Bloh, 04.11.2021.
  15. Tolstoy Miloslavsky v. the United Kingdom, zaiava № 18139/91, p. 37; «Meloun proty Obiednanoho Korolivstva («Malone v. the United Kingdom»), zaiava № 8691/79, p. 66); «Marhatera i Rodzher Andersson proty Shvetsii» («Margareta and Roger Andersson v. Sweden»), zaiava № 12963/87, p. 75; «Amann protyShveitsarii» («Amann v. Switzerland»), zaiava № 27798/95, p. 50 ta 56; S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [VP], zaiavy № 30562/04 i № 30566/04, p. 95; «The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom (№ 1)», zaiava № 6538/74, p. 46; «Kuric and Others v. Slovenia», zaiava № 26828/06, p. 34; «Slivenko v. Latvia», zaiava № 48321/99, p. 100.
  16. Takyi pidkhid zastosovano v postanovakh vid 13.02.2018 u spravi № 580/122/17, vid 20.02.2018 u spravi № 576/1724/17, vid 20.02.2018 u spravi № 679/761/15-a, vid 27.02.2018 u spravi № 642/3284/17, vid 27.02.2018 u spravi № 227/2360/17, vid 17.12.2018 u spravi № 344/12315/16-a
Back to contents