This article examines the phenomenon of informal influence on the judiciary in contemporary democratic systems through the lens of the interaction between law, politics, and civil society. It is argued that traditional approaches to judicial independence, focused on formal safeguards and state interference, do not fully capture the complexity of the current configuration of influences. Drawing on the theory of legal mobilization, civil society is conceptualized as an active actor shaping the judicial system through legal, communicative, and reputational mechanisms. The article introduces the concept of strategic reputational power, understood as the capacity to shape public evaluations, define standards of judicial integrity, and influence expectations regarding judicial decisions. This type of influence operates indirectly and may produce a “chilling effect” on judicial behavior, thereby affecting judges’ internal independence. The study also explores the phenomenon of institutional asymmetry, which reflects the imbalance between the significant influence exercised by non-state actors and the lack of corresponding accountability mechanisms. Based on a comparative analysis, including the experience of Ukraine and other transitional democracies, it is demonstrated that the judiciary operates within a hybrid environment where democratic oversight coexists with elements of reputational pressure and informational influence. The article substantiates the need to take into account informal mechanisms of influence and to ensure transparency as a key condition for maintaining a balance between civil society participation and judicial independence.

Authored books

1. Chadwick A, The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power. Oxford Studies in Digital Politics (2 edn, Oxford University Press 2017) https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190696726.001.0001.

2. Cichowski R A, The European Court and Civil Society: Litigation, Mobilization and Governance (Cambridge University Press 2007) https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511491924.

3. Epp C R, The Rights Revolution: Lawyers, Activists, and Supreme Courts in Comparative Perspective (University of Chicago Press 1998).

4. McCann M, Rights at Work: Pay Equity Reform and the Politics of Legal Mobilization (University of Chicago Press, 1994).

Edited books

5. Parau C E, ‘The Drive for Judicial Supremacy’, In: A Seibert-Fohr (eds), Judicial Independence in Transition. Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht. vol 233 (Springer 2012) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28299-7_16.

6. Reayat N, Smith R K M, Cho M (eds), Judicial Independence in Transitional Democracies (1st ed., Routledge 2024) https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003458296.

7. Wheeler R, Judicial Independence in the United States of America. In: Seibert-Fohr, A. (eds) Judicial Independence in Transition. Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht, vol 233 (Springer 2012) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28299-7_13.

Journal articles

8. Bojarski L, ‘Judicial Resistance: missing part of judicial independence? The case of Poland and beyond’ [2025] 15(2) Oxati Socio-Legal Series 662–700 https://doi.org/10.35295/osls. iisl.1893.

9. Briffault R, ‘Super PACs’ [2012] 96(5) Minnesota Law Review 1644–1693 https://doi. org/10.24926/265535.1314. pravoua.com.ua 182 Лідія Москвич

10. Fajdiga M, Zagorc S, ‘Freedom or Feardom of Expression of Judges? Exploring the ‘Chilling Effect’ on Judicial Speech’ [2023] 19(2) European Constitutional Law Review 249–270 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019623000093.

11. Kelemen R D, ‘The European Union’s authoritarian equilibrium’ [2020] 27(3) Journal of European Public Policy 481–499 https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2020.1712455.

12. King B G, Soule S A, ‘Social Movements as Extra-Institutional Entrepreneurs: The Effect of Protests on Stock Price Returns’ [2007] 52(3) Administrative Science Quarterly 413–442.

13. Lashyn S, Leshchyshyn A, Popova M, ‘Civil Society as an Informal Institution in Ukraine’s Judicial Reform Process’ [2023] 24 German Law Journal 1488–1502 https://doi.org/10.1017/ glj.2023.87.

14. Lejeune A, Ringelheim J, ‘The Differential Use of Litigation by NGOs: A Case Study on Antidiscrimination Legal Mobilization in Belgium’ [2023] 48(4) Law & Social Inquiry 1365– 1398 https://doi.org/10.1017/lsi.2022.54.

15. Mendelski M, ‘Europeanization and the Rule of Law: Towards a Pathological Turn’ [2016] 40 Southeastern Europe 346–384 https://doi.org/10.1163/18763332-04003003.

16. Scheppele K L, ‘Autocratic Legalism’ [2018] 85(2) University of Chicago Law Review 545–583.

17. Shepherd J M, ‘The Influence of Retention Politics on Judges’ Voting’ [2009] 38 The Journal of Legal Studies 169–206 https://doi.org/10.1086/592096.

18. Khotynska-Nor O, Salenko O, ‘Fenomen doviry ta lehitymnist sudovoi vlady: natsionalni pozytsii vs mizhnarodni standarty’ [2024] 1 Yurydychnyi naukovyi elektronnyi zhurnal 671–675 https://doi.org/10.32782/2524-0374/2024-1/160 (in Ukrainian).

19. Moskvych L, ‘Dovira do sudu: stan ta pokaznyky’ [2018] 3 Pravo Ukrainy 9–25 https://doi. org/10.33498/louu-2018-03-009 (in Ukrainian).

20. Ovsiannikova O, ‘Hromadska rada dobrochesnosti yak instytut vidnovlennia doviry hromadskosti do sudovoi vlady ta podolannia koruptsii v sudovii systemi’ [2017] 1 Pravo Ukrainy 71–79 (in Ukrainian).

Websites

21. Burlyuk Olga, Shapovalova Natalia, ‘Civil Society in Ukraine: Still Saving Democracy’ (Martens Center Blog, 2018. no. 12 October) (accessed 27.03.2026).

22. Dark Money (Brennan Center for Justice) (accessed 27.03.2026).

23. Haar Kenneth, van Scharen Hans, ‘Defunding NGOs that lobby the EU will be profoundly undemocratic’ (16.12.2024) (accessed 27.03.2026).

24. New Report: Outside Spending, Dark Money from Wealthy Few Booming Post-‘Citizens United’ (January 14, 2015) (accessed 27.03.2026).

25. The Fire Power of the Financial Lobby: A Survey of the Size of the Financial Lobby at the EU level (Corporate Europe Observatory, 2014) (accessed 27.03.2026).

26. Vanhala L, Kinghan J, ‘Literature Review on the Use and Impact of Litigation’ (The Public Law Project (PLP) Research Paper, April 8, 2018) (accessed 27.03.2026).

27. What Is the Difference Between Advocacy and Lobbying? (Apr 6, 2026) (accessed 27.03.2026).