2015, Vol. 13 No. 1, 200-218 doi: 10. 1093/icon/mov003

4. Conclusions
This article has argued that post-Soviet constitutional courts are among the most 
politicized courts in the world if we take their formal empowerment as an indica-
tor. Whether or not this assessment makes the region home to judicialization largely 
depends on the proper definition of “judicialization,” which is yet to be provided. This 
article shows that, despite a fair degree of generalization, the judiciary in every coun-
try in the region still suffers from a lack of independence to such an extent that no 
52
For information on the events in Zhanaozen, 
see
Human Rights Watch, 
Striking Oil, Striking Workers: 
Violations of Labor Rights in Kazakhstan’s Oil Sector
(2012), 101, 
available at
http://www.hrw.org/sites/
default/files/reports/kazakhstan0912ForUpload.pdf
.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/13/1/200/689847 by guest on 31 May 2022

---

218
I•CON
13 (2015), 200–218
outward manifestation of judicial activism can be reasonably taken as a pattern of
a real transfer of political decision-making from the representative branches to the 
courts.
Discussing and conceptualizing the cases of judicial decision-making on key politi-
cal issues in post-Soviet countries, this article has emphasized the following qualities 
of this phenomenon: judicial intervention in pure politics is incidental rather than 
consistent; respective incidents hardly represent any visible transfer of power from the 
political decision-maker to the judiciary; and judicial involvement in politics is more 
often than not a byproduct of political pressure or manipulation of constitutional law 
and of the constitutional judiciary. These features of judicial involvement in politics 
in effect set the patterns of judicialization in contrast with what has been depicted as 
judicialization of politics in developed democracies.
53
53
As this article was under review, Ukraine was shaken by another strong wave of protests that brought to 
change of power in capital Kiev and secessionist actions in Crimea. These developments, certainly, could 
not bypass courts. In only a few days since President Yanukovich was ousted from power, the interim 
Ukrainian government replaced the judges of the Constitutional Court, while the country returned 
back to the 2004 Constitution which was invalidated by pro-Yanukovich Constitutional Court in 2010. 
Meanwhile in Russia, as both the Parliament and the President approved Crimea’s hasty vote to become 
part of Russia, the Constitutional Court of this country is expected to review the constitutionality of this 
action. As the outcome of this and possible other related cases is yet to be seen, soon there will be plenty 
of material for the succeeding literature on the subject to test the hypotheses of this article.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/13/1/200/689847 by guest on 31 May 2022