Keywords
How to Cite
Abstract
The article analyzes that the objectivity of judges is an important criterion for ensuring democracy and human rights. It has been studied that objectivity is considered to be the main quality that a judge should possess and is an essential feature of the judicial profession. Objectivity must exist as a fact in the mind of a rational person. If there are reasons to believe that objectivity does not exist, this breeds discontent and injustice, and at the same time undermines the credibility of the judiciary. The understanding of objectivity was determined by the criterion of a reasonable observer and was considered an important criterion for ensuring democracy and human rights.
References
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.