International standard of access to justice and subject of civil procedural law

Q3 Arts and Humanities
V. Komarov, T. Tsuvina
{"title":"International standard of access to justice and subject of civil procedural law","authors":"V. Komarov, T. Tsuvina","doi":"10.37635/jnalsu.28(3).2021.197-208","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The current state of development of national systems of civil justice is described by the growing influence of the ideas of accessibility and efficiency of justice in civil cases and requires the harmonization of national systems with international standards of fair trial. This necessitates a rethinking of some classical provisions of the doctrine of civil procedural law to comply with modern realities. The aim of the article is to study the evolution and approaches to the modern interpretation of the international standard of access to justice in civil cases, as well as its impact on the doctrine of the subject of civil procedural law at the doctrinal level. The article is based on dialectical, histo rical-legal, system-structural, logical-legal, comparative-legal research methods, as well as methods of analysis and synthesis, autonomous and evolutionary interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The authors advocate a broad approach to the concept of access to justice, including access to justice, access to effective remedies and access to alternative dispute resolution. Through the prism of the international standard of access to justice, the ideas of procedural centralism, based on the idea of judicial protection as the main and most effective form of protection of violated rights, and procedural pluralism, based on the provision of multiple forms of protection, the effectiveness of which is determined by the circumstances of a particular dispute. The authors substantiate the conclusion about the expediency of the perception of the idea of procedural pluralism at the level of the national legal order. A parallel is drawn between the ideas of procedural centralism and pluralism that have developed in foreign literature, and the narrow and broad concept of the subject of civil procedural law, formed in the domestic doctrine. Taking into account the autonomous interpretation of the concept of “court”, enshrined in paragraph 1 of Art. 6 of the ECHR, as well as the increasing popularization of alternative dispute resolution, provide arguments in support of a broad concept of the subject of civil procedural law, including civil litigation and alternative dispute resolution, in particular, arbitration, international commercial arbitration, mediation, etc.","PeriodicalId":36101,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37635/jnalsu.28(3).2021.197-208","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

The current state of development of national systems of civil justice is described by the growing influence of the ideas of accessibility and efficiency of justice in civil cases and requires the harmonization of national systems with international standards of fair trial. This necessitates a rethinking of some classical provisions of the doctrine of civil procedural law to comply with modern realities. The aim of the article is to study the evolution and approaches to the modern interpretation of the international standard of access to justice in civil cases, as well as its impact on the doctrine of the subject of civil procedural law at the doctrinal level. The article is based on dialectical, histo rical-legal, system-structural, logical-legal, comparative-legal research methods, as well as methods of analysis and synthesis, autonomous and evolutionary interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The authors advocate a broad approach to the concept of access to justice, including access to justice, access to effective remedies and access to alternative dispute resolution. Through the prism of the international standard of access to justice, the ideas of procedural centralism, based on the idea of judicial protection as the main and most effective form of protection of violated rights, and procedural pluralism, based on the provision of multiple forms of protection, the effectiveness of which is determined by the circumstances of a particular dispute. The authors substantiate the conclusion about the expediency of the perception of the idea of procedural pluralism at the level of the national legal order. A parallel is drawn between the ideas of procedural centralism and pluralism that have developed in foreign literature, and the narrow and broad concept of the subject of civil procedural law, formed in the domestic doctrine. Taking into account the autonomous interpretation of the concept of “court”, enshrined in paragraph 1 of Art. 6 of the ECHR, as well as the increasing popularization of alternative dispute resolution, provide arguments in support of a broad concept of the subject of civil procedural law, including civil litigation and alternative dispute resolution, in particular, arbitration, international commercial arbitration, mediation, etc.
国际司法救助标准与民事诉讼法主体
国家民事司法系统的发展现状体现在民事案件中司法的可及性和效率思想的影响越来越大,需要使国家系统与国际公平审判标准相协调。这就需要重新思考民事诉讼法学说中的一些经典条款,以符合现代现实。本文的目的是研究民事案件诉诸司法国际标准的现代解释的演变和方法,以及它在理论层面对民事诉讼法主体理论的影响。本文以辩证法、历史法、系统结构法、逻辑法、比较法等研究方法,以及对《欧洲人权公约》的分析和综合、自主和进化解释方法为基础。提交人主张对诉诸司法的概念采取广泛的做法,包括诉诸司法、获得有效补救和获得替代性争端解决。通过诉诸司法的国际标准的棱镜,基于司法保护是保护被侵犯权利的主要和最有效形式的理念的程序集中主义理念,以及基于提供多种形式保护的程序多元化,其有效性取决于特定争端的情况。作者在国家法律秩序的层面上证实了对程序多元主义概念的理解是权宜之计的结论。在国外文献中发展起来的程序中心主义和多元主义思想与国内学说中形成的民事诉讼法主体的狭义和广义概念之间存在着相似之处。考虑到《欧洲人权公约》第6条第1款对“法院”概念的自主解释,以及替代性争端解决的日益普及,提供论据支持民事诉讼法主体的广泛概念,包括民事诉讼和替代性争端处理,特别是仲裁,国际商事仲裁、调解等。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信