The establishment of international judicial institutions, in particular the European Court of Human Rights, with its judgments binding on national legal systems, the improvement by national courts of methodological tools for researching and resolving court cases, as well as institutional and procedural reforms of judicial systems of the countries of the world have led to a significant improvement in the quality of justice in the current environment. As a result, the nature of the study of the circumstances of legal reality, as well as the depth of analysis of regulatory provisions by courts in the course of resolving individual cases, often contribute to the formation of provisions based on the results of the consideration of cases that are not inferior in content and significance to the rules of law created by the legislative and executive branches of government. This state of affairs is increasingly pushing for a scientific solution to the problem of “judicial lawmaking” and “judicial rulemaking” and providing a reasonable answer to the question of the legal ability of Ukrainian courts to create rules of law. The lexical and semantic analysis of these lexical constructions is the first step towards achieving the goal.

The purpose of the article is to determine, by conducting a lexical-semantic analysis of the relevant terminology, the conceptual possibility of using the lexical constructions “judicial law creation” and “judicial rule creation” in relation to the activity of the court in the aspect of the assumption that its results in the form of legal provisions formed and recorded by the court may acquire the characteristics of regulatory normative-legal prescriptions.

The author defines the methodological features of the study of the terminological constructions “judicial lawmaking” and “judicial rulemaking” and the features of the modern use of the term “court”. The author makes a conditional grouping of scientific provisions on the definition of the essence of “lawmaking” and “rulemaking” within the framework of divergent and convergent approaches with further analysis of the respective positions of legal scholars.

The author analyzes the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Lawmaking”, which is coming into force, in terms of formalizing the category of “lawmaking”. The scientific analysis is accompanied by the author’s reference to the regulatory provisions of national legislation, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, and the results of scientific legal research. The author establishes that the substantive instability at the doctrinal level of the categories “lawmaking” (law creation) and “rulemaking” (rule creation), as well as a broader substantive and historical interpretation of the relevant processes in general, determine the conceptual admissibility of the use of the entire range of conceptual and categorical constructs at the level of legal science, in particular, “judicial lawmaking”, “judicial law creation”, “judicial rulemaking” and “judicial rule creation”. Moreover, from the point of view of the current situation, which is characterized by formalization of the category of “lawmaking” by the provisions of legislation, which also indirectly formalizes the related category of “law creation”, it seems more optimal to use the terminological constructs “judicial law creation” and “judicial rule creation” to refer to the relevant court activities.

Bibliography

Authored books

1. Holovatyi S, Verkhovenstvo prava: u 3 knyhakh. Knyha tretia: Verkhovenstvo prava: ukrainskyi dosvid (Feniks 2006).

2. Rabinovych P, Osnovy zahalnoi teorii prava ta derzhavy: posibnyk dlia studentiv spetsialnosti ‘Pravoznavstvo’ (vyd. 2-e, 1994).

3. Ryndiuk V, Normotvorcha diialnist: navchalno-metodychnyi posibnyk dlia samostiinoho vyvchennia dystsypliny (KNEU 2009).

4. Yasynok D, Sudova pravotvorchist ta yii mezhi v tsyvilnomu sudochynstvi Ukrainy (Alerta 2024).

Edited and translated books

 5. Koziubra M (ed), Zahalna teoriia prava: pidruchnyk (Vaite 2015).

6. Marochkin I (ed), Orhanizatsiia sudovykh ta pravookhoronnykh orhaniv: pidruchnyk (Pravo 2013). 7. Pohrebniak S ta inshi, Porivnialne pravoznavstvo: pidruchnyk (O Petryshyn ed, Pravo 2012).

8. Tsvik M, Petryshyn O (ed), Zahalna teoriia derzhavy i prava: pidruchnyk dlia studentiv yurydychnykh vyshchykh navchalnykh zakladiv (Pravo 2009).

Journal articles

9. Baran A, ‘Normotvorennia i pravotvorennia: spivvidnoshennia poniat ta teoretychne obgruntuvannia’ [2021] 4(32) Visnyk Natsionalnoho universytetu “Lvivska politekhnika”. Seriia: Yurydychni nauky 175–182.

10. Baranenko D, ‘Poniattia ta sutnist normotvorchoi diialnosti tsentralnykh orhaniv vykonavchoi vlady’ [2020] 6 Yurydychnyi visnyk 68–75.

11. Cherniakovych Ye, ‘Poniattia y zavdannia normotvorchoi diialnosti Ministerstva vnutrishnikh sprav Ukrainy’ [2021] 1 Pidpryiemnytstvo, hospodarstvo i pravo 158–162.12. Didyk N, Besaha I, ‘Osoblyvosti normotvorchoho provadzhennia u publichnii sferi’ [2018] 2 Sotsialno-pravovi studii 25–31.

13. Filyk N, Kalistratov O, ‘Osoblyvosti pravotvorennia v diialnosti sudovykh orhaniv’ [2012] 4(25) Yurydychnyi visnyk 40–44.

14. Husarov S, ‘Poniattia ta sutnist pravotvorchosti v Ukraini’ [2015] 2 Pravova systema: teoriia i praktyka 55–59.

15. Kalenchuk A, ‘Normotvorchist yak sfera mozhlyvoho zavdannia derzhavoiu tsyvilno-pravovoi shkody’ [2015] 13(2) Naukovyi visnyi Mizhnarodnoho humanitarnoho universytetu. Seriia: Yurysprudentsiia 50–52.

16. Kroitor V, ‘Pretsedentnyi kharakter rishen Yevropeiskoho sudu z prav liudyny v suchasnomu tsyvilnomu protsesualnomu pravi’ [2023] 4 Yurydychnyi naukovyi elektronnyi zhurnal 192– 198 <http://www.lsej.org.ua/4_2023/46.pdf> (accessed: 16.03.2024).

17. Lepekh Yu, ‘Pytannia pro spivvidnoshennia poniat “pravotvorchist” ta “normotvorchist” [2015] 855 Visnyk Natsionalnoho universytetu “Lvivska politekhnika”. Seriia: Yurydychni nauky 225–231.

18. Mahrelo M, ‘Avtonomna kontseptsiia poniattia ‘sud’ yak osnova instytutu spravedlyvoho sudu’ [2013] 2(27) Visnyk Akademii advokatury Ukrainy 70–77.

19. Mytrofanov I, ‘Katehorii yurydychnoi nauky’ [2022] 11 Yurydychnyi naukovyi elektronnyi zhurnal 53–56 <http://www.lsej.org.ua/11_2022/8.pdf> (accessed: 16.03.2024) .

20. Novikov V, ‘Shchodo rozmezhuvannia poniat ‘normotvorchist’ i ‘pravotvorchist’ [2021] 2 Akademichni vizii 36–40.

21. Petrova I, ‘Normotvorchyi protses i stadii normotvorchosti v diialnosti Derzhavnoi fiskalnoi sluzhby Ukrainy’ [2017] 865 Visnyk Natsionalnoho universytetu “Lvivska politekhnika” Seriia: Yurydychni nauky 308–315.

22. Petryshyna M, ‘Napriam udoskonalennia normotvorchosti v orhanakh mistsevoho samovriaduvannia v Ukraini’ [2012] 2(2) Yevropeiski perspektyvy 71–76.

23. Pohorielova Z, ‘Normotvorcha diialnist Prezydenta Ukrainy yak pravova forma realizatsii normotvorchykh povnovazhen’ [2022] 73(1) Naukovyi visnyk Uzhhorodskoho natsionalnoho universytetu. Seriia Pravo 24–30.

24. Pohorielova Z, ‘Pryntsypy normotvorchoi diialnosti orhaniv derzhavnoi vlady’ [2021] 7 Naukovi zapysky NaUKMA: Yurydychni nauky 52–60.

25. Ryndiuk V, ‘Pravotvorchist yak vyd yurydychnoi diialnosti: prakseolohichnyi aspekt’ [2019] 4 Visnyk NTUU “KPI”. Politolohiia. Sotsiolohiia. Pravo 137–142.

26. Serdiuk I, Metodolohichnyi analiz interpretatsii poniattia “pravotvorchist” [2017] 2 Naukovyi visnyi DDUVS 69–78.

27. Shpak Yu, ‘Metodolohichni pidkhody do vyznachennia poniattia normotvorchosti orhaniv mistsevoho samovriaduvannia’ [2013] 1 Naukovyi visnyk Lvivskoho derzhavnoho universytetu vnutrishnikh sprav 145–152.

28. Starko V, ‘Katehoryzatsiia katehoryzatsii’ [2009] 9 Problemy zistavnoi semantyky 57–61.

29. Stasiuk T, ‘Katehoryzatsiia yak osnova movnoi reprezentatsii znannia’ [2016] 272(260) Naukovi pratsi Chornomorskoho derzhavnoho universytetu imeni Petra Mohyly kompleksu “Kyievo-Mohylianska akademiia”. Seriia: Filolohiia. Movoznavstvo 91–94.

30. Stefanchuk R, ‘Pro zasady pravovoho rehuliuvannia pravotvorchoi diialnosti v Ukraini’ [2021] 12 Pravo Ukrainy 11–22.

31. Tepliuk M, ‘Pravotvorchist yak diialnist, poviazana z pravom’ [2013] 12 Biuleten Ministerstva yustytsii Ukrainy 90–97.

32. Tsuvina T. ‘Sud, vstanovlenyi zakonom’ yak element prava na spravedlyvyi sudovyi rozghliad u tsyvilnomu sudochynstvi’ [2019] 2 Chasopys Kyivskoho universytetu prava 137–141.

33. Yatsyniuk V, ‘Arkhetypovyi konflikt normotvorennia orhaniv publichnoho upravlinnia’ [2021] 1(26) Publichne uriaduvannia 280–292.

34. Zamorska L, ‘Katehoriia “struktura normy prava” yak osnova yoho normatyvnosti’ [2010] 50 Derzhava i pravo 19–25.

 35. Zhelezniak N, ‘Normotvorcha diialnist yak forma realizatsii derzhavnoi polityky: teoretychni ta praktychni problemy’ [2004] 26 Naukovi zapysky NaUKMA: Yurydychni nauky 29–37.

Conference papers

 36. Kurinnyi Ye, ‘Pravovi potreby ta protsesy pravoutvorennia i pravorealizatsii v Ukraini’, Aktualni problemy derzhavotvorennia, pravotvorennia ta pravozastosuvannia (Dnipro 2017).

37. Serdiuk I, ‘Terminolohichna nevyznachenist katehorii, shcho vidobrazhaie diialnist upovnovazhenykh subiektiv prava zi stvorennia, zminy chy skasuvannia pravovykh norm’, Aktualni problemy derzhavotvorennia, pravotvorennia ta pravozastosuvannia (Dnipro 2017).