Judicial activism and methods of interpretation

Abstract

A distinct characteristic of the judicial activity of integration courts is that it is aimed not only at resolving legal conflicts, but also at interpreting the law in order to fill the existing gaps. Filling legal gaps may be described as a key function of an integration court. This special characteristic leads to the phenomenon of judicial activism. The study of the case law of integration courts reveals the possibility to formulate activist legal findings using different methods of interpretation. The possibility to use the teleological method of interpretation, which is the most suitable in order to eliminate legal gaps, stems directly from the provisions of the Vienna convention on the law of international treaties. The analysis of the acts of the Court of Justice of the European Union allows to establish a strong correlation between activist approaches and the use of the teleological method of interpretation. However teleological interpretation does not necessarily mean the choice of the most progressive available options. Often the activism manifests itself in the search of a balance between the interests of the integration organization and its Member States. The Court of the Eurasian Economic Union develops activist approaches by using both traditional methods of interpretation and teleological interpretation as well as having recourse to constitutional traditions of the Member States.

References

1. Barak, A. (1999). Judicial discretion. Moscow (in Russ.).
2. Diyachenko, E. (2019). Methods of interpretation in the case-law of the Eurasian Economic Union Court. International justice, Vol. 9, 2, pp. 77–92. (in Russ).
3. Diyachenko, E. (2020). Judicial activism and its role in case-law of international courts. International justice, Vol. 10, 2, pp. 103–125. (in Russ.).
4. Ispolinov, A. (2016). Judicial activism and judicial rule-making of the Court of Justice of the European Union. International justice, 1, pp. 81–94. (in Russ.).
5. Kovler, A.I. (2016). Phenomenon of judicial activism: separate opinions of judges of the European Court of human rights. Russian yearbook of the European Convention on human rights, pp. 30–57 (in Russ.).
6. Kovler A . I. (2019). European Convention in the international system of protection of human rights. Moscow (in Russ.).
7. Lukashuk, I.I. (2004). Modern law of international treaties: in 2 vol. Vol. 1. Moscow (in Russ.).
8. Talalaev, A.N. (2017). Law of international treaties. Vol. 2: Operation and application of treaties. Treaties with international organisations. Moscow (in Russ.).
9. Chayka, K.L. (2018). International legal approaches in the case-law of the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union. Journal of Russian law, Vol. 11, pp. 138–151 (in Russ.).
10. Entin, K.V. (2020). European Union law through the prism of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Moscow (in Russ.).
11. Entin, K. (2021). The role of international agreements and international customary law in the EU and EAEU legal orders. International Justice, Vol. 11, 1, pp. 102–130 (in Russ.).
12. Entin, K. (2022). General principles of integration law as a secret weapon of the CJEU and of the Eurasian Economic Union Court. International Justice, Vol. 12, 2, pp. 64–83. (in Russ.).
13. Allot, P. (1999). The concept of international law. European journal of international law, Vol. 10, 31, pp. 31–50.
14. Arnull, A. (2012). Judicial Activism and the European Court of Justice: How Should Academics Respond. Maastricht Faculty of Law Working Paper, 3, pp. 2–35.
15. Beck, G. (2019). Judicial Activism in the Court of Justice of the EU. University of Queensland Law Journal, Vol. 36, 2, pp. 333–353.
16. Gardiner, R. (2015). Treaty interpretation. Oxford.
17. Hart, H.M. and Sacks, A.M. (1958). The legal process: basic problems in the making and application of law. Cambridge.
18. Hart, H. (1958). Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals. Harvard Law Review, Vol. 71, 4, pp. 593–629.
19. Lenaerts, K. and Gutierrez-Fonz, J. (2013). To Say What the Law of the EU Is: Methods of Interpretation of the European Court of Justice. In: K., Lenaerts and J., Gutierrez-Fonz (Eds.). EUI Working Paper AEL (pp. 3–55). Florence.
20. Mahoney, P. (1990). Judicial Activism and Judicial Self-R estraint in European Court of Human Rights: Two Sides of the Same Coin. Human Rights Law Journal, Vol. 11, 1–2, pp. 5–88.
21. Pirker, B. and 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, 2, pp. 129–148.
22. Popovic, D. (2009). Prevailing of judicial activism over self-restraint in the jurisprudence of the European court of human rights. Creighton Law Review, Vol. 42, pp. 361–396.
23. Corten, O. and Klein, P. (Eds.). (2011). The Vienna Conventions on the law of treaties. A commentary. Vol. 1. Oxford.
24. Thirlway, H. (2002). Judicial Activism and the International Court of Justice. In: N., Ando (Ed.). Liber Amicorum Judge Shigeru Oda (pp 75–105). Hague.
25. Zarbiyev, F. (2012). Judicial activism in international law — a conceptual framework for analysis. Journal of international Dispute settlement, Vol. 3, 2, pp. 247–278.