Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Use and Misuse of Language in Judicial Decision-Making: Russian Experience

  • Published:
International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In my paper I will analyze decisions of the Russian Constitutional Court and courts of general jurisdiction, in which they interpret ordinary and seemingly unambiguous words and phrases. In a number of cases this interpretation is made in a manner, which is suspect from a linguistic point of view. The analysis shows that there is no consistency in the application by Russian courts of the “plain language” rule and that literal interpretation may be used selectively as a means of legitimizing the decisions made on non-linguistic grounds. Though literal interpretation can be often incompatible with the concept of justice and therefore judges should also take into account other criteria, there are examples of court decisions, in which literal interpretation would have been more appropriate from the perspective of justice, separation of powers and human rights. The article shows how use and misuse of language by judges is employed as a tool in judicial decision-making.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The in-depth description of the Russian Constitutional Court’s competence and the role it plays in the Russian judicial and political system can be found in A.Troshev’s book “Constitutional Court in Russian Politics, 1990–2006” [22].

  2. In 2001 the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) was substituted with a new Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.

  3. Krai is one of the types of the subjects of the Russian Federation, alongside with republics, regions, autonomous regions, autonomous areas and cities of federal importance.

  4. The role of this decision for the transformation of the Russian political system is analyzed in: Krasnov M. A., Shablinskij I. G. 2008. Rossijskaja sistema vlasti: treugol'nik s odnim uglom / Russian system of power: A triangle with one angle [12].

References

  1. Aarnio, Aulis. 1991. Statutory interpretation in Finland. In Interpreting statutes, ed. D. Neil MacCormick, and Robert S. Summers, 123–170. England: Dartmouth Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alexy, Robert. 1989. A theory of legal argumentation: the theory of rational discourse as theory of legal justification. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Alexy, Rober, and Ralf Dreier. 1991. Statutory interpretation in the Federal Republic of Germany. In Interpreting statutes, ed. D. Neil MacCormick, and Robert S. Summers, 73–121. England: Dartmouth Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Barak, Aaron. 2005. Purposive interpretation in law (trans: Bashi, S.) USA: Princeton University Press.

  5. Bosmajian, Haig. 1992. Metaphor and reason in judicial opinions. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chng, Huang Hoon. 2002. Separate and unequal: judicial rhetoric and women’s rights. The Netherlands: John Benjamins B.V.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Facchini, Mark, and Peter A. Grossman. 1999. Metaphor and metonymy: An analysis of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul Minnesota. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 12: 211–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Garner, Bryan A. 2008. Garner on language and writing: selected essays and speeches of Bryan A, Garner. USA: American Bar Association.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Goodman, Andrew. 2005. How judges decide cases: reading, writing and analyzing judgments. UK: XPL Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gore, Stephanie A. 2003. “A rose by another name”: Judicial use of metaphors for new technologies. University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology & Policy 137: 1105.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Goodrich, Peter. 1987. Legal discourse. London: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Krasnov, M.A., and I.G. Shablinskij. 2008. Rossijskaja sistema vlasti: treugol’nik s odnim uglom. Moscow: Institute of law and public policy.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kratkij slovar’ inostrannyh slov (Short Dictionary of Foreign Words). 1950. Ed. I.Lyokhina, F.Petrova. Moscow: State Publishing House of Foreign and National Dictionaries.

  14. Mazzi, Davide. 2010. This argument fails for two reasons…”: A linguistic analysis of judicial evaluation strategies in US Supreme Court Judgments. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 23(4): 373–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Morra, Lucia. 2010. New models for language understanding and the cognitive approach to legal metaphors. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 23(4): 387–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Perelman, Chaim, and Luac Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Philips, Susan U. 1998. Ideology in the language of judges. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Soboleva, Anita. 2007. Topical jurisprudence: reconciliation of law and rhetoric. In Interpretation. Law and the construction of meaning, ed. Anne Wagner, Wouter Werner, and Debora Cao, 49–64. The Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Solan, Lawrence M. 1993. The language of judges. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  20. Slovar’ inostrannyh slov (Dictionary of Foreign Words). http://slov.h1.ru/slov%20-%200011.htm.

  21. Tiersma, Peter M. 1999. Legal language. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Trochev, Alexei. 2008. Judging Russia: constitutional court in Russian politics, 1990–2006. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. White, James Boyd. 1990. Justice as translation: an essay in cultural and legal criticism. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Viehweg, Theodor. 1993. Topics and law. Frankfurt am Mein: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

Constitution and Statutes

  1. The Constitution of the Russian Federation. 1993. English translation: http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-01.htm.

  2. Code of administrative offenses of the Russian Federation.30.12.2001. N 195-FZ.

  3. Code of Criminal Procedure of RSFSR. Enacted by the RSFSR Supreme Soviet 27.10.1960. Avaiable in Russian at http://www.consultant.ru/online/base/?req=doc;base=LAW;n=34685;p=2.

  4. Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.14.11.2002. N 138-FZ.

  5. Federal Constitutional Law “On Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation”. 21.07.1994. N 1-FKZ (with amendments). Unofficial English translation is available at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Law_on_Constitutional_Court_of_the_Russian_Federation.

  6. The Federal Law No.54-FZ “On Gatherings, Meetings, Demonstrations, Processions and Pickets”/Federalny Zakon № 54-FZ “O sobranijah, mitingah, demonstracijah, shestvijah i piketirovanijah. Adopted on June 19, 2004, came into force on July 4, 2004. Rossijskaja gazeta. 23.06.2004. N 3508. Unofficial English translation is available at http://legislationline.org/documents/action/popup/id/4367.

Cases Cited

  1. Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation N 2-П of 28 January 1997 “On checking the constitutionality of part 4 article 47 Of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure upon the complaints of B.V.Antipov, R.L.Gitis and S.V.Abramov (in Russian). Sobranie zakonodatel’stva RF. 1997. N 7. Art. 871.

  2. Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation N 7-П “On checking the constitutionality of section 3 article 1 of the Act of the Russian Federation of 20 May 1993 On social protection of citizens, subjected to influence of radiation in the result of the accident of 1957 in the enterprise Mayak and spew of nuclear waste-materials into Techa-river upon the complaint of V.Kornilov (in Russian). Sobranie zakonodatel’stva RF. 1996. № 15. Art. 1768.

  3. Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation no 12-П of 14 July 1997 “On interpretation of the clause of part 4 of Article 66 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation on inclusion of autonomous okrug in krai, oblast” (in Russian). Rossijskaja gazeta. 22.07.1997.

  4. Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation no 28-П of 11 December 1998 “On interpretation of the clause of part 4 of Article 111 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation” (in Russian). Sobranie zakonodatel’stva. 1998. № 52. Art. 6447.

  5. Decision of Justice of the Peace of the judiciary unit no. 81 of the Central district of Novorossijsk on administrative sanctions against Vladimir Fedorovich P’jankov, file № 5-416/2007, 9 February 2007. (Unpublished).

  6. Decision of Oktjabr’skij district court of Novorossijsk city of Krasnodar region on appeal, submitted by Vladimir Fedorovich P’jankov, file № 5-416/2007, on the Ruling of Justice of the Peace of the judiciary unit no. 81 of the Central district of Novorossijsk. 2 March, 2007. (Unpublished).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE), Moscow, Russia

    Anita Soboleva

Authors
  1. Anita Soboleva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anita Soboleva.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Soboleva, A. Use and Misuse of Language in Judicial Decision-Making: Russian Experience. Int J Semiot Law 26, 673–692 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-012-9270-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-012-9270-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation