Russia's war between the courts: The struggle over the jurisdictional boundary between the Constitutional Court and Regular Courts

William Burnham, Alexei Trochev

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Civil law systems that have established constitutional courts alongside their systems of regular courts have traditionally had difficulty defining the precise jurisdictional dividing line between them. This has been a problem in Russia since the time of the establishment of Russia's first Constitutional Court in 1991 and it continues today with Russia's current Constitutional Court, established by Russia's 1993 Constitution. The clash between the Russian Constitutional Court and regular courts has intensified since 1998, when the Constitutional Court began a campaign to expand its jurisdiction through broad interpretations of its powers under the Constitution. That campaign continues to the present day, with decisions as recent as this year claiming even broader jurisdiction than before. Many of the Constitution Court's decisions can be criticized as poorly reasoned and contrary to the letter and history of the jurisdictional grants set out in the Constitution. This article examines those decisions and the reactions of the regular court systems to them.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)381-452
Number of pages72
JournalAmerican Journal of Comparative Law
Volume55
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2007
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

constitutional court
Russia
constitution
jurisdiction
campaign
civil law
court decision
grant
interpretation
present
history

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Law

Cite this

@article{62a42fee68bf429e99507785d40d5c21,
title = "Russia's war between the courts: The struggle over the jurisdictional boundary between the Constitutional Court and Regular Courts",
abstract = "Civil law systems that have established constitutional courts alongside their systems of regular courts have traditionally had difficulty defining the precise jurisdictional dividing line between them. This has been a problem in Russia since the time of the establishment of Russia's first Constitutional Court in 1991 and it continues today with Russia's current Constitutional Court, established by Russia's 1993 Constitution. The clash between the Russian Constitutional Court and regular courts has intensified since 1998, when the Constitutional Court began a campaign to expand its jurisdiction through broad interpretations of its powers under the Constitution. That campaign continues to the present day, with decisions as recent as this year claiming even broader jurisdiction than before. Many of the Constitution Court's decisions can be criticized as poorly reasoned and contrary to the letter and history of the jurisdictional grants set out in the Constitution. This article examines those decisions and the reactions of the regular court systems to them.",
author = "William Burnham and Alexei Trochev",
year = "2007",
month = "6",
language = "English",
volume = "55",
pages = "381--452",
journal = "American Journal of Comparative Law",
issn = "0002-919X",
publisher = "American Society of Comparative Law",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Russia's war between the courts

T2 - The struggle over the jurisdictional boundary between the Constitutional Court and Regular Courts

AU - Burnham, William

AU - Trochev, Alexei

PY - 2007/6

Y1 - 2007/6

N2 - Civil law systems that have established constitutional courts alongside their systems of regular courts have traditionally had difficulty defining the precise jurisdictional dividing line between them. This has been a problem in Russia since the time of the establishment of Russia's first Constitutional Court in 1991 and it continues today with Russia's current Constitutional Court, established by Russia's 1993 Constitution. The clash between the Russian Constitutional Court and regular courts has intensified since 1998, when the Constitutional Court began a campaign to expand its jurisdiction through broad interpretations of its powers under the Constitution. That campaign continues to the present day, with decisions as recent as this year claiming even broader jurisdiction than before. Many of the Constitution Court's decisions can be criticized as poorly reasoned and contrary to the letter and history of the jurisdictional grants set out in the Constitution. This article examines those decisions and the reactions of the regular court systems to them.

AB - Civil law systems that have established constitutional courts alongside their systems of regular courts have traditionally had difficulty defining the precise jurisdictional dividing line between them. This has been a problem in Russia since the time of the establishment of Russia's first Constitutional Court in 1991 and it continues today with Russia's current Constitutional Court, established by Russia's 1993 Constitution. The clash between the Russian Constitutional Court and regular courts has intensified since 1998, when the Constitutional Court began a campaign to expand its jurisdiction through broad interpretations of its powers under the Constitution. That campaign continues to the present day, with decisions as recent as this year claiming even broader jurisdiction than before. Many of the Constitution Court's decisions can be criticized as poorly reasoned and contrary to the letter and history of the jurisdictional grants set out in the Constitution. This article examines those decisions and the reactions of the regular court systems to them.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34548776997&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34548776997&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 55

SP - 381

EP - 452

JO - American Journal of Comparative Law

JF - American Journal of Comparative Law

SN - 0002-919X

IS - 3

ER -