Constitutional courts have to dispense perhaps one of the most politicized types of justice, which is dictated primarily by the nature of their mandate and the object of judicial review. Meanwhile, since the ideals of justice hardly find common ground with political expediency, they often tend to resort to various, and sometimes quite sophisticated, methods to evade political questions. But if the problem of the politicization of constitutional justice and the constitutionalization of politics has been much studied in legal scholarship, then the reasoning itself, either in favor of or against resolving political questions by constitutional review organs, remains without due research attention. Therefore, this article focuses on the starting points of argumentation regarding the possibility of solving political questions by initiating a constitutional review. The author identifies the reasons for the politicization of constitutional justice and determines the main means of its depoliticization. He analyzes the criteria used in a number of legal orders, namely in the United States, Canada, Israel, France, and Russia, to determine the justiciability of constitutional disputes complicated by a political element. By way of revealing the dialectics of considerations underlying the institutional competence argument, the author demonstrates the advantages and disadvantages of various methods for excluding political questions from a constitutional court’s agenda and evaluates the argumentative potential of the principles of democracy, separation of powers and the rule of law. It is shown that the very same principle can both encourage a constitutional review organ to intervene in the political process and, on the contrary, require the exercise of judicial restraint. The article concludes that the perception of a constitutional court judgment as either a legal or political act depends above all on the quality of presented legal discourse and on how a constitutional review organ builds its arguments and communicates with its audience.
About the author:
Aldar Chirninov – Candidate of Sciences (Ph.D.) in Law, Researcher, Institute of Philosophy and Law, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Assistant Professor at Ural State Law University, Ekaterinburg, Russia
Citation: Chirninov A. (2020) Razreshenie politicheskikh voprosov sredstvami konstitutsionnogo pravosudiya: iskhodnye punkty argumentatsii v sravnitel’no-pravovoy perspektive [When political questions and constitutional justice meet: the starting points of argumentation in a comparative perspective]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.29, no.4, pp.55–79. (In Russian).
Alexy R. (2010) The Construction of Constitutional Rights. Law & Ethics of Human Rights, vol.4, no.1, pp.21–32.
Aleksi R. (2008) Yuridicheskaya argumentatsiya kak ratsional’nyy diskurs [Legal argumentation as rational discourse]. Rossiyskiy ezhegodnik teorii prava, no.1, pp.446–456. (In Russian).
Barak A. (2006) The Judge in a Democracy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Barkow R.E. (2002) More Supreme than Court? The Fall of the Political Question Doctrine and the Rise of Judicial Supremacy. Columbia Law Review, vol.102, no.2, pp.237–336.
Belov S.A. (2020) Obnulenie i dukh Konstitutsii: Kommentariy dlya zhurnala “Zakon”. Available at: https://zakon.ru/blog/2020/4/17/obnulenie_i_duh_konstitucii (accessed: 21.04.2020). (In Russian).
Bickel A.M. (1986) The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics, 2nd ed., New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Blokhin P.D. (2015) Konstitutsionnyy sovet Frantsii kak organ konstitutsionnogo pravosudiya: nekotorye nablyudeniya po itogam predshestvuyushchikh pyati let deyatel’nosti [The Constitutional Council of France as an organ of constitutional justice: some observations based on the results of the previous five years of practice]. In: Knyazev S.D., Antonov A.V. (eds.) Konstitutsionnyy sovet Frantsii na sovremennom etape: sbornik statey [The Constitutional Council of France at the present stage: a collection of articles], Moscow: Izdatel’skaya gruppa “Yurist”, pp.83–118. (In Russian).
Blokhin P.D. (2018) Sudebnaya doktrina konstitutsionnoy identichnosti: genezis, problemy, perspektivy [The judicial doctrine of constitutional identity: genesis, issues, and perspectives]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.27, no.6, pp.62–81. (In Russian).
Bondar’ N.S. (2013) Konstitutsionnoe pravosudie i politika: popytka konstitutsionnogo analiza bez politizatsii [Constitutional justice and politics: an attempt of constitutional analysis without politicization]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.22, no.1, pp.45–64. (In Russian).
Bondar’ N.S. (2017) Zakonodatel’nye probely — kategoriya konstitutsionno-pravovoy defektologii: metodologiya issledovaniya, praktika preodoleniya [Legislative gaps — the category of constitutional and legal defectology: the methodology of research, the practice of overcoming]. Zhurnal konstitutsionnogo pravosudiya, no.3, pp.1–9. (In Russian).
Brown N.J., Waller J.G. (2016) Constitutional Courts and Political Uncertainty: Constitutional Ruptures and the Rule of Judges. International Journal of Constitutional Law, vol.14, no.4, pp.817–850.
Ceia E.M. (2007) The Applicability of the Political Question Doctrine in the Foreign Affairs Field: Should International Treaties be Regarded as Non-Justiciable Acts?: Paper presented at the IACL 2007 World Congress, June 2007, Athens.
Cowper G., Sossin L. (2002) Does Canada Need a Political Questions Doctrine? Supreme Court Law Review, vol.16, no.1, pp.343–370.
Dyevre A. (2018) The French Constitutional Council. In: Jakab A., Dyevre A., Itzcovich G. (eds.) Comparative Constitutional Reasoning, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.323–355.
Dyurkgeim E. (1991) Tsennostnye i “real’nye suzhdeniya” [Value and “real judgments”]. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya, no.2, pp.106–114. (In Russian).
Espinosa R. (2017) Constitutional Judicial Behavior: Exploring the Determinants of the Decisions of the French Constitutional Council. Review of Law and Economics, vol.13, no.2, p.1–37.
Frankenberg G. (2012) Democracy. In: Rosenfeld M., Sajo A. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.250–267.
Fukuyama F. (2014) America in Decay: The Sources of Political Dysfunction. Foreign Affairs, vol.93, no.5, pp.5–26.
Gadzhiev G. (2008) Printsipy prava i pravo iz printsipov: Konstitutsionnye sudy i zakonodatel’nye organy — druz’ya i soperniki na arene konstitutsionnoy politiki [Principles of law and law from principles. Constitutional courts and legislatures — friends and rivals in the arena of constitutional politics]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.17, no.2, pp.22–45. (In Russian).
Gil E. (2014) Judicial Answer to Political Question: the Political Question Doctrine in the United States and Israel. Boston University Public Interest Law Journal, vol.23, no.1, pp.245–285
Ginsburg T., Garoupa N. (2011) Building Reputation in Constitutional Courts: Political and Judicial Audiences. Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, vol.28, no.3, pp.539–568.
Grimm D. (2019) What Exactly Is Political about Constitutional Adjudication? In: Landfried C. (ed.) Judicial power: How Constitutional Courts Affect Political Transformations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.307–317.
Grove T.L. (2015) The Lost History of the Political Question Doctrine. New York University Law Review, vol.90, no.6, pp.1908–1974.
Hahm C. (2012) Beyond “Law vs. Politics” in Constitutional Adjudication: Lessons from South Korea. International Journal of Constitutional Law, vol.10, no.1, pp.6–34.
Hulme K.C. (2011) The Unnatural Likeness of Deference: The Supreme Court of Canada and the Democratic Process: Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Political Studies, Queen’s University.
Kennedy D. (1994) A Semiotics of Legal Argument. In: Collected Courses of the Academy of European Law, vol.3, pp.309–365.
Kennedy D. (2018) Proportionality and “Deference” in Contemporary Constitutional Thought. In: Perišin T., Rodin S. (eds.) The Transformation or Reconstitution of Europe: The Critical Legal Studies Perspective on the Role of the Courts in the European Union, Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp.29–58.
Klare K. (2014) Critical Perspectives on Social and Economic Rights, Democracy and Separation of Powers. In: García H.A., Klare K., Williams L.A. (eds.) Social and Economic Rights in Theory and Practice: Critical Inquiries, New York: Routledge, pp.19–38.
Kondurov V.E. (2018) Osnovaniya deystvitel’nosti pravoporyadka i problema yustitsiabel’nosti “politicheskogo”: K.Shmitt o granitsakh yustitsii [The foundations of the validity of legal order and the problem of the justiciability of the “political”: C.Schmitt on the limits of justice]. Trudy Instituta gosudarstva i prava RAN, no.5, pp.63–91. (In Russian).
Mulhern J.P. (1988) In Defense of the Political Question Doctrine. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol.137, no.1, pp.97–176.
Muller J.-W. (2012) Militant Democracy. In: Rosenfeld M., Sajo A. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.1253–1268.
Navot S. (2018) The Israeli Supreme Court. In: Jakab A., Dyevre A., Itzcovich G. (eds.) Comparative Constitutional Reasoning, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.471–515.
Palombella D. (2010) Verkhovenstvo prava za ramkami gosudarstva: neudachi, ozhidaemye dostizheniya i teoriya [The rule of law beyond the state: failures, promises, and theory]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.19, no.2, pp.70–89. (In Russian).
Paris M.-L., Foulon J. (2019) Constitutional Law in France, Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer.
Park R. (2016) Is the Political Question Doctrine Jurisdictional or Prudential. UC Irvine Law Review, vol.6, no.2, pp.255–280.
Popelier P. (2012) Preliminary Comments on the Role of Courts as Regulatory Watchdogs. Legisprudence, vol.6, no.3, pp.257–270.
Rosenfeld M. (2019) Judicial Politics versus Ordinary Politics: Is the Constitutional Judge Caught in The Middle? In: Landfried C. (ed.) Judicial power: How Constitutional Courts Affect Political Transformations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.36–65.
Shakhrai S.M. (2013) O Konstitutsii: Osnovnoy zakon kak instrument pravovykh i sotsial’no-politicheskikh preobrazovaniy [About the Constitution: a basic law as an instrument of legal and socio-political transformations], Moscow: Nauka. (In Russian).
Sweet A.S. (2007) The Politics of Constitutional Review in France and Europe. International Journal of Constitutional Law, vol.5, no.1, pp.69–92.
Thayer J.B. (1893) The Origin and Scope of the American Doctrine of Constitutional Law. Harvard Law Review, vol.7, no.3, pp.129–156.
Tushnet M. (2000) Taking the Constitution away from the Courts, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Tribe L.H. (1988) American Constitutional Law, 2nd ed., New York: Foundation Press.
Troitskaya A.A. (2014) Printsip razdeleniya vlastey v praktike organov konstitutsionnogo kontrolya zarubezhnykh stran [The separation of powers principle in the practice of constitutional review organs of foreign countries]. In: Avak’yan S.A. (ed.) Sovremennye problemy organizatsii publichnoy vlasti [Contemporary problems of organization of public authority], Moscow: Yustitsinform. (In Russian).
Uitz R. (2007) Constitutional Courts in Central and Eastern Europe: What Makes a Question Too Political? Juridica International, vol.13, no.2, pp.47–59.
Volcansek M.L. (2019) Judicialization of Politics or Politicization of the Courts in New Democracies? In: Landfried C. (ed.) Judicial power: How Constitutional Courts Affect Political Transformations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.66–81.
Zor’kin V.D. (2019) Konstitutsionnyy Sud Rossii: doktrina i praktika: monografiya [The Constitutional Court of Russia: doctrine and practice: a monograph], Moscow: Norma. (In Russian).
Zor’kin V.D. (2008) Rossiya i Konstitutsiya v XXI veke [Russia and the Constitution in the 21st century], 2nd ed., Moscow: NORMA. (In Russian).
Zor’kin V.D. (2010) Sovremennyy mir, pravo i Konstitutsiya [The contemporary world, law, and the constitution], Moscow: Norma. (In Russian).
Moscow, Shchepkina str., 8
+7 (495) 608-69-59
+7 (495) 608-66-35