СУДЬЯЛАРНИНГ ХОЛИСЛИГИ ДЕМОКРАТИЯ ВА ИНСОН ҲУҚУҚЛАРИНИ ТАЪМИНЛАШНИНГ МУҲИМ МЕЗОНИ
PDF

Ключевые слова

Бангалор принциплари, судьяларнинг холислиги, нохолислик, судьяларнинг одоб-ахлоқи, мустақиллик, инсон ҳуқуқлари, олдиндан шаклланган фикр, суд музокараси, оммавий ахборот воситалари.

Аннотация

Мақолада судьяларнинг холислиги демократия ва инсон ҳуқуқларини таъминлашнинг муҳим мезони эканлиги таҳлил қилинган. Холислик судья эгаллаши шарт бўлган асосий сифат ҳисобланиши ва судьялик касбининг ажралмас ўзига хос хусусияти эканлиги ўрганилган. Холислик оқил шахснинг тафаккурида факт сифатида мавжуд бўлиши керак. Агар холислик мавжуд эмас деган эҳтимолга асос бўлса, бу норозилик ва адолатсизликни келтириб чиқаради ва айни пайтда суд тизимига нисбатан ишончга путур етиши асосланган. Холисликни тушуниш оқил кузатувчининг мезони ёрдамида аниқланади ва бу демократия ва инсон ҳуқуқларини таъминлашнинг муҳим мезони ҳисобланади.

PDF

Литература

1. Бангалорские принципы поведения судей. Гаага, 26 ноября 2002 года. https://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/conventions/bangalore_principles.

2. Territorial Court Act (NWT), Northwest Territories Supreme Court, Canada (1997) D.L.R. (4th) 132 at 146, per Justice Vertes.

3. Russell PH, O’Brien DM (eds) Judicial independence in the age of democracy: critical perspectives from around the world. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville 2001.

4. Stephen, N.. Judicial independence – A fragile bastion. In S.Shetreet & J.Deschênes (Eds.), Judicial independence: The contemporary debate Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 1985.p. 529.

5. Pimentel D. Reframing the independence v. Accountability debate: Defining judicial structure in light of judges’ courage and integrity. 2009. Cleveland State Law Review, 57(1), 1.

6. Raban, O. Modern legal theory and judicial impartiality. London: 2003 GlassHouse Press.

7. Shetreet, S. Judicial independence: New conceptual dimensions and contemporary challenges. In S.Shetreet & J.Deschênes (Eds.), Judicial independence: The contemporary debate. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 1985.p. 590.

8. S.Shetreet & J. Deschênes, Judicial independence: The contemporary debate. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 1985.pp. 7–380.

9. Geyh, C. Straddling the fence between truth and pretense: The role of law and preference in judicial decision making and the future of judicial independence. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy, 22(2), 2008. 435. p. 447.

10. Gregory v. United Kingdom, European Court of Human Rights, (1997) 25 E.H.R.R. 577.

11. Castillo Algar v. Spain, European Court of Human Rights, (1998) 30 E.H.R.R. 827.

12. R. v. Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy, [1924] 1 K.B. 256 at 259, per Chief Justice Lord Hewart; и Johnson v. Johnson, (2000) 201 CLR 488 at 502.

13. R. v. Bertram, [1989] OJ No. 2133 (QL), Justice Cory в R. v. S., Supreme Court of Canada, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484, para. 106.

Филин Д.М., Боровков А.В. “Место и роль нравственных принципов в работе судьи”. Вопросы современной юриспруденции. 2015. №44. –С 3.

Jeffrey M. Shaman, Steven Lubet and James J. Alfini, Judicial Conduct and Ethics, 3rd ed. (Charlottesville, Virginia, The Michie Company, 2000).

Laird v. Tatum, United States Supreme Court (1972) 409 US 824.

Commonwealth of Virginia Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee, Opinion 2000-5; Ebner v. Official Trustee in Bankruptcy, High Court of Australia, [2001] 2 LRC 369, (2000) 205 CLR 337.

Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No. 2), House of Lords, United Kingdom, [1999] 1 LRC 1.

The Judges v. Attorney-General of Saskatchewan, Privy Council on appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada, (1937) 53 T.L.R. 464; Ebner v. Official Trustee in Bankruptcy, High Court of Australia, [2001] 2 LRC 369; Panton v. Minister of Finance, Privy Council on appeal from the Court of Appeal of Jamaica, [2002] 5 LRC 132.