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

---

I•CON 
(2015), Vol. 13 No. 1, 200–218 doi:10.1093/icon/mov003
© The Author 2015. Oxford University Press and New York University School of Law. 
All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [e-mail]
Judicialization of politics: The 
post-Soviet way
Armen Mazmanyan
*
This article analyzes cases of higher court involvement in “pure politics” in post-Soviet coun-
tries. The main purpose of this endeavor is twofold. First, the work contributes evidence from 
this under-studied region to enrich the debate on judicialization and extend its reach. Second, 
the article traces the nature of political interventions by courts in post Soviet countries and 
explores whether these represent patterns of judicialization typical to other polities. In par-
ticular, this article pays special attention to one essential facet of judicialization—political 
empowerment of the judiciary—to analyze whether the incidents of judicial decision-making 
on key political issues in post Soviet regimes is comparable, on important accounts, with the 
judicialization of democratic politics elsewhere and especially in developed democracies.
1. Introduction
This article reacts to academic work describing a worldwide tendency towards the 
judicialization of  politics.
1
 As one of  its essential propositions, research on judicializa-
tion claims there has been substantial transfer of political power from democratically 
accountable decision-makers to judges globally. Apart from evidence originating in 
developed democracies, this claim relies also on cases of judicial intervention into poli-
tics in other political regimes across the world.
2
The article analyzes cases of higher court involvement in “pure politics” in post-
Soviet countries. The main purpose of this endeavor is twofold. First, the work contrib-
utes evidence from this under-studied region to enrich the debate on judicialization 
and extend its reach. Second, the article traces the nature of political interventions 
1
Torbjörn Vallinder, 
The Judicialization of Politics—A World-wide Phenomenon: Introduction
, 15(2) 
I
nt
’
l
P
ol
. 
S
cI
. R
ev
. 91 (1994); 
t
he
G
lobal
e
xPanSIon
of
J
udIcIal
P
oweR
(C. Neal Tate & Vallinder Torbjorn eds.,1995); 
M
aRtIn
S
haPIRo
& a
lec
S
tone
S
weet
, o
n
l
aw
, P
olItIcS
, 
and
J
udIcIalIzatIon
(2002); John Ferejohn, 
Judicializing 
Politics, Politicizing Law
, 65(3) 
l
aw
& c
onteMP
. P
Rob
.
41 (2002); Ran Hirschl, 
The Judicialization of Mega-
politics and the Rise of Political Courts
, 
a
nnual
R
ev
. P
ol
. S
cI
. 
11 (2008).
2
C. Neal Tate, 
The Judicialization of Politics in the Philippines and Southeast Asia
, 15(2) 
I
nt
’
l
P
ol
. S
cI
. R
ev
. 
187 (1994); Tamir Moustafa, 
Law Versus the State: The Judicialization of Politics in Egypt
, 28(4) 
l
aw
& S
oc
. 
I
nquIRy
883 (2003); 
t
he
J
udIcIalIzatIon
of
P
olItIcS
In
l
atIn
a
MeRIca
(Rachel Sieder, Line Schjolden, & Alan 
Angell, eds., 2005); Hirschl, 
supra
note 1.
* Director, Center for Constitutional Studies, Apella Institute, Yerevan, Armenia. Email: 
armen.mazman-
[e-mail]
.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/13/1/200/689847 by guest on 31 May 2022

---

Judicialization of politics: The post-Soviet way
201
by courts in post Soviet countries and explores whether these represent patterns of
judicialization typical to other polities. In particular, this article pays special attention 
to one essential facet of judicialization—political empowerment of the judiciary- to 
analyze whether the incidents of judicial decision-making on key political issues in 
post Soviet regimes is comparable, on important accounts, with the judicialization of
democratic politics elsewhere and especially in developed democracies.
Despite widespread application, the term “judicialization” admittedly suffers 
from the lack of a proper scholarly definition.
3
Referring to the growing transfer 
of decision-making powers from the political branch to the judiciary, “judicializa-
tion” has implicitly acquired both normative and descriptive connotations. The 
normative perspectives on judicialization, which dominate the discourse, are in 
essence associated with the debates on democratic credentials of judicial review. 
Descriptively, the scholarship on judicialization has depicted the extension of judi-
cial politics to new areas of policy-making and the spread of this tendency geo-
graphically, across the world. This said, the descriptive account has followed the 
normative inquiry and has been largely placed in the context of the quest for the 
legitimacy of judicial review.
Remarkably, both perspectives encounter potential controversies if treated in a local 
context outside the developed world. The normative question about democratic legiti-
macy of judicialization in the post-Soviet region, as well as probably elsewhere in non-
consolidated democracies, runs into an illuminating paradox: while judicialization is 
conventionally treated as a counter-democratic practice, in non-consolidated democ-
racies it clearly signals success of democratization. At the same time, the descriptive 
account of judicialization, which has commonly attempted to strengthen the impres-
sion of judicial empowerment as a tendency across the world, has largely failed to 
assess and contrast the quality and the logic of judicialization in each of the developed 
and the developing world.
This article suggests that the “theory of judicialization” should better define its own 
status with respect to cases originating in political regimes in which courts do not 
have necessary independence from the politicians. This gap in the academic research 
is unfortunate from a number of perspectives. First, extending the blanket account of
judicialization—a tendency by courts and judges to gradually take over decision-mak-
ing powers that had previously belonged to political agencies—to political regimes, 
where judicial empowerment is merely formal and where courts serve as loyal agents to 
the incumbents and often as a mere façade, is not simply misleading, but is ultimately 
deceptive. Second, the normative account of judicialization is to some extent irrelevant 
to such polities, as political decisions here do not reflect people’s choices one way or the 
other. As an alternative to the strictly normative quest, the scholarship on judicializa-
tion in non-consolidated democracies would accomplish more if it concentrated on the 
study of the political determinants of courts’ empowerment, and on the perspectives, 
causes, and consequences of meaningful and consistent judicial involvement in politics 
in respective polities.
3
Hirschl, 
supra
note 1, at 99.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/13/1/200/689847 by guest on 31 May 2022

---