THE MORAL AND ETHICAL NATURE OF IMPARTIALITY IN JUDICIAL ACTIVITY

Abstract

The purpose. The aim of this article is to reveal the specifics of the moral and ethical nature of the phenomenon of judicial impartiality (neutrality) against the backdrop of conflict of interest in contemporary philosophical and legal concepts. Research methods. To achieve this goal, a comparative legal method was used, which made it possible to compare the roles of a judge and judicial impartiality in different legal families. Systemic-structural and formaldogmatic methods facilitated the consideration of judicial impartiality in two dimensions – moral-ethical and normative-procedural – as well as the analysis of national legislation, international legal documents, and ECtHR case law. The hermeneutic method served to examine the concepts of P. Ricoeur (the judge as an interpreter and mediator between abstract law and a concrete life situation) and J. Habermas (the judge as a neutral moderator of rational legal discourse). Results. It is determined that judicial impartiality is immanently linked to independence and is revealed through the concept of conflict of interest as an objective situation with an increased risk of improper considerations influencing a decision. The philosophical approaches to judicial impartiality in the concepts of P. Ricoeur and J. Habermas are analyzed. The personal (subjective) dimension of judicial impartiality is substantiated, which is expressed through the personal qualities of a specific judge and their ability to resist internal and external influences that could affect their decision. It is shown that the standards of judicial impartiality (neutrality) reach back to the moral foundations of the judicial profession, which, in the course of historical development, have evolved and transformed into a system of rules of professional conduct and legal norms aimed at achieving the goals of judicial proceedings and ensuring an individual’s right to a fair trial. Conclusions. Judicial activity is regulated dually: by the norms of positive law and by moral and ethical principles, which form the basis of public trust in justice. Impartiality is not only a legal requirement, but also an essential personal trait of a judge. The realistic goal of modern judicial proceedings is not the complete eradication of subjectivity, but the mitigation of bias through a combination of the judge’s internal moral duty (subjective criterion) with legislative guarantees and recusal procedures (objective criterion).