Dissenting opinion in the constitutional justice and the evolution of legal science

About the author:

Konstantin V. Karpenko, Cand. Sci (Jur.), Associate Professor, Department of Constitutional Law, Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO University) at the MFA of the Russian Federation; kvk_1973@mail.ru; ORCID: 0000-0001-8852-181X

Abstract:

The article deals with the influence of the dissenting opinions of constitutional judges on the development of legal science. This issue is usually very important for constitutional and legal science as its understanding and practical resolution influence the authority of constitutional justice in a state. The dissenting opinion of any judge is their right to express their reasoned disapproval of the rendered decision, formulated in writing and attached to the court decision. Dissenting opinions in constitutional proceedings are of increased importance, because decisions of constitutional courts are aimed to protect law and order in general and are addressed to entire population.
The dissenting opinions of constitutional judges contribute to the development of legal science in two aspects. On the one hand, they can contain new ideas, theories and approaches to law, with the help of which new categories and concepts are introduced into scientific discussion. On the other hand, dissenting opinions make often wide references to foreign experience in resolving legal conflicts. In this case, dissenting opinions fit into the framework of comparative legal research and allow taking into account the judicial practice and judicial argumentation of other countries and legal systems. Both aspects contribute to the expansion of the doctrinal base of legal science, pose and solve new problems, increase the need for scientific discussion.
This study is based on a formal-dogmatic scientific method, which is aimed at disclosing the true meaning of legal positions of judges presented in dissenting opinions. A systematic method is also used, which allows to identify and classify single areas of scientific knowledge. The author also applies the comparative legal method, which consists in comparing different legal positions in the dissenting opinions of judges.
The novelty of the research is in determination of contribution of dissenting opinions of constitutional judges to the development of legal science.

References:

1. Voytovich E. A. 2020. “Constitutional and legal bases for the formation of the Senate of the Australian Commonwealth”. Journal of Law and Administration, no. 1 (54), pp. 36-41. [In Russian]
2. Kononov A. L. 2017. Dissenting opinion of judge Kononov. Moscow: Kuchkovo pole. 480 pp. [In Russian]
3. Narutto S. V. 2018. “The supremacy of constitution as a basis of the constitutional legal order in Russia”. Russian Law, no. 3, pp. 30-35. [In Russian]
4. Novopavlovskaya E. E., Pereverzev E. A. 2017. “Dissenting opinion of the judge of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation: Problems of legal regulation and practical application”. Economics, law and sociology herald, no. 1, pp. 104-108. [In Russian]
5. Sergeev A. B. 2013. “Dissenting opinion in criminal procedure”. Society and power, no. 1 (39), pp. 71-75. [In Russian]
6. High Court of Australia. 1920. Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (Engineers case) HCA 54; (1920) 28 CLR 129. Accessed on 23 October 2021. http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1920/54.html  
7. Constant B. 1815. Principe de Politique. Paris: Hocquet. 324 pp. [In French]
8. Ústavní soud. 2021. Constitutional court of the Czech Republic, decision Pl. ÚS 106/20 of 9.02.2021 (123/2021 Coll.). Accessed on 25 October 2021. https://www.usoud.cz 
9. Ústavní soud. 2018. Constitutional court of the Czech Republic, decision Pl. ÚS 7/17 of 27.03.2018 (81/2018 Sb.). Accessed on 26 October 2021. https://www.usoud.cz 
10. Constitutional Court of Hungary. 1990. Decision 23/1990 (X. 31.). Accessed on 20 October 2021. https://hunconcourt.hu/dontes/decision-23-1990-on-capital-punishment 
11. Dworkin R. 1994. L’Empire du Droit. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. 468 pp. [In French]
12. Freixes T. 2000. “La Pratique des Opinions Dissidentes en Espagne”. Cahiers du Conseil Constitutionnel, no. 8. Accessed on 28 October 2021. https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr [In French]
13. Garg R. D. 1974. “Phantom of basic structure of the constitution”. Journal of the Indian Law Institute, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 243-269.
14. Holmes O. W. 1897. “The path of the law”. Harvard Law Review, vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 457-478.
15. Kelemen K. 2013. “Dissenting opinions in constitutional courts”. German Law Journal, vol. 14, no. 8, pp. 1345-1371.
16. Kelemen K. 2011. “The road from common law to east-central europe: the case of the dissenting opinion”. In: Cserne P., Könczöl M. (eds). 2011. Legal and Political Theory in the Post-National Age, pp. 118-134. Frankfurt: Peter Lang Publishing. 
17. Lynch A. 2003. “Dissent: The rewards and risks of judicial disagreement in the High Court of Australia”. Melbourne University Law Review, no. 27 (3). Accessed on 3 November 2021. http://www5.austlii.edu.au
18. Polzin M. 2021. “The basic structure doctrine and its German and French origins: A tale of migration”. Indian Law Review, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 45-61.
19. Legal Information Institute. US Supreme Court, 163 U.S. 537 (1896). Accessed on 21 October 2021. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/163/537 
20. Legal Information Institute. US Supreme Court, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Accessed on 21 October 2021. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/347/483/ 
21. Legal Information Institute. US Supreme Court, 536 U.S. 304 (2002). Accessed on 21 October 2021. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/536/304/ 
22. Witting C. E. 2016. The Occurrence of Separate Opinions at the Federal Constitutional Court. An Analysis with a Novel Database. Mannheim: Logos Verlag Berlin. 178 pp.
23. Zagrebelsky G. 2000. “The Practice of Dissenting Opinions in Italy”. Cahiers du Conseil Constitutionnel, no. 8. Accessed on 3 November 2021. https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr [In French]