The article examines the institution of a separate opinion in international courts. Emphasis is placed on the activities of the International Court of Justice of the United Nations and its practice regarding the exercise by judges of the right to a separate opinion. Emphasis is placed on the positive approval of certain opinions by researchers, in favor of which several arguments are given. First, it is argued that the very fact of separate opinions leads to an improvement in the arguments and style of the decision made by the majority of judges. Secondly, the majority then makes decisions more responsibly. Third, dissent has a positive effect on the confidence of the parties in the process and the perception of the decision by the losing party, who sees that his arguments have been heard and convinced at least a minority. After all, separate opinions have a positive effect on the development of international law. In legal sources, three categories of separate opinions are distinguished: (1) «good», among which he includes opinions that are short, polite and restrained, that express reasons, not emotions; (2) «bad» - if the separate opinion states that the majority fundamentally erred in making a decision or showed ignorance; (3) «unpleasant» opinions in which the dissenting judge accuses the majority of misconduct. As the practice of the judges of the European Court of Human Rights shows regarding the writing of separate opinions, these opinions may have a format that is not laid down in the prescriptions of the mentioned international acts, and be marked not only as a «concurring» or «disagreeing» separate opinion of the judge, but also as a «partial concurring, partially dissenting» and «partially dissenting» separate opinion of the judge, as well as «separate opinion of the judge joined by the judge», «joint concurring opinion of the judges», «joint dissenting separate opinion of the judges». That is, the method of presenting a separate opinion is chosen by the judges who decided to express it.The right of judges to a separate opinion came to international justice from the countries of the common law system, although the latest studies of comparativists prove that this is far from the case. Separate opinions first spread in international commercial arbitration, and then penetrated into international courts and arbitrations created to resolve disputes involving states. In our national legal system, the right of a judge to express a separate opinion is a recognized tool for ensuring the internal independence of each judge of the Constitutional Court and is enshrined in Article 93 of the Law of Ukraine «On the Constitutional Court of Ukraine» and in § 74 of the Rules of Procedure of this Court. These provisions contain general requirements for the expression of a separate opinion by a judge of the Court and do not detail the types of separate opinions and the manner in which they are presented by a judge of the Court. It was concluded that the realities of modern international justice consist in the fact that there are no procedural mechanisms that separate «good» separate opinions from «bad», and everything is determined only by the restraint and character of the judge himself, who was in the minority, as well as by culture and traditions the court itself. The older and more authoritative the court, the more resistant it is to surprises that can bring bad and unsuccessful individual opinions, the higher its immunity to such opinions. And, on the contrary, the younger the court, the more damage it and its decisions can be caused by the separate opinions of the judges, if the authors (judges) do not approach this issue responsibly.
The article examines the main characteristics of a separate opinion of the judge as a unique independent genre of judicial discourse. It is emphasized that a special opinion of consent, or simply opinion, is declared in cases where the judge has no objection to the decision of the college itself and joins it, but either considers the above arguments or ways of resolving the legal dispute unsuccessful, or brings to argumentation additional consideration. This type of special opinion is characterized by greater freedom of expression of legal position in terms of content and arguments. It is noted that the constitutional justice of Ukraine formed a model of complete openness of a separate opinion of the judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, the highest degree of which is the publication of a separate opinion together with the decision. A separate opinion of the judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine is determined by such that should not be confidential. It is proposed to identify a special opinion of a judge of a collegial body as an optional, structural and functional element of a judgment that is entered into the text of a decision or attached to it in the form of a separate document that has no obligatory legal force, but exists in an inseparable logical, semantic and structural. The main court decision, which determines its content and context and is characterized by individual argumentation, emotionality, imagery and evaluation. A separate opinion is an expression of a position on an issue that has already been decided by the court. This is the cry of the soul about the fact that certain arguments of the judge were not reflected in the motivational part of the court decision, or he does not agree with the decisive part of it. Special opinion is a unique independent genre of judicial discourse, in which argumentation is achieved, on the one hand, by logic and appeal to the letter of the law, and on the other, by the use of various means of emotional linguistic influence. The Institute of Distinctive Opinions serves as a guarantor of judicial independence and enables judges to position themselves not only as a part of the discursive expert community, but also as a sovereign person, a carrier and translator of a subjective creative legal position. Key words: a separate opinion of the judge, judicial discourse, constitutional justice, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, legal positions, court decisions, argumentation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.