Almanac of law. Issue 17 (2026), pages 345–350.

DOI: 10.33663/2524-017X-2026-17-345-350

Kunenko I. S.
Constitutional Definition of the Justice Sphere: A Comparative Legal Analysis

The article presents a comparative legal analysis of constitutional models for defining the justice sphere in foreign states. The study is based on a broad understanding of justice as a sphere of public authority within which entities authorised by law carry out legal activities aimed at safeguarding the legal order in response to violations of law. The constitutional level of regulation is identified as determinative, since it establishes the basic parameters of the organisation and functioning of justice activity — its subject-matter scope, the composition of its actors, guarantees of their independence, and standards of judicial protection of individual rights.

The analysis of foreign constitutions demonstrates that none of them formulates the concept of justice as such or constructs it as a coherent normative model. Constitutional texts establish institutions, actors, principles and guarantees of justice activity without providing a generalised definition of justice as an independent sphere of public authority. This fragmentation results from the absence in legal doctrine of an established general theoretical approach to justice as an autonomous object of constitutional regulation.

Three principal models of constitutional definition of the justice sphere are identified. The first — the entrenchment of a list of justice-related matters as subjects of exclusively legislative regulation — is the most widespread but remains fragmentary, since no constitution examined covers the full range of elements of justice as a coherent system. The second — the introduction of organic or equivalent laws — enhances the stability of the organisational foundations of justice institutions by elevating them closer to the constitutional level; however, it predominantly focuses on the institutional organisation of individual justice authorities. The third model — the system of constitutional guarantees of individual rights and institutional independence of justice actors — is functionally the most indispensable. It encompasses the constitutional complaint mechanism, protection against unlawful acts of public authorities, procedural standards of a fair trial, and guarantees of judicial independence. However, this model is formed predominantly around judges, leaving other actors of the justice system — prosecutors, pre-trial investigation bodies, penitentiary authorities, and notaries — without equivalent constitutional protection.

It is concluded that the fragmentation of the constitutional definition of the justice sphere contributes to a gap between the formal entrenchment of guarantees for the protection of rights and their effective enforcement in practice. Overcoming this gap requires not only the refinement of individual constitutional provisions but also the development of a doctrinally sound approach to justice as a coherent object of constitutional regulation.

Keywords: constitutional regulation, guarantees of human rights, justice, justice sphere, organic law, subjects of justice.

 References

1. Constitution of the French Republic of October 4, URL: https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr
2. Constitution of the Portuguese Republic of April 2, URL: https://www.parlamento.pt/sites/EN/ Parliament/Documents/Constitution7th.pdf
3. Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (Grundgesetz). URL: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/
4. Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria of July 13, 1991. URL: https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/ru/legislation/details/17201
5. Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan of November 12, 1995. URL: https://president.az
6. Kunenko S., Poliarush-Safronenko S. O., Lapka O. The Concept and Significance of Constitutional and Organic Laws. Journal of International Legal Communication. 2022. Vol. 4, No. 1. P. 65–74.
7. Konstytutsiine pravo: pidruchnyk / za red. M. I. Koziubry. Kyiv: VAITE, 2021. 528 s. URL: https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/9/d/489959_1.pdf (in Ukr.).
8. Constitution of Spain of December 27, 1978. URL: https://www.congreso.es/constitucion/ficheros/c78/cons_ pdf
9. Constitution of the Republic of Moldova of July 29, 1994. URL: https://www.legis.md
10. Constitution of Romania of November 21, 1991. URL: https://www.presidency.ro/en/president/constitution-of-romania
11. Constitution of Georgia of August 24, 1995. URL: https://matsne.gov.ge
12. Constitution of Hungary of April 25, 2011. URL: https://www.parlament.hu/documents/125505/138409/Fundamental+law/
13. Zakharchenko , Lavryk H. Konstytutsiine pravo derzhav-chleniv YeS. Poltava: PUET, 2024. 389 s. URL: https://constitutionalist.com.ua/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Konstytutsiine-pravo-derzhav-chleniv-Yevropeiskoho-Soiuzu.pdf (in Ukr.).
14. Beschastnyi , Terletskyi D., Zaporozhets V. Konstytutsiina skarha: u poshukakh balansu mizh publichnym ta pryvatnym interesom. Visnyk Konstytutsiinoho Sudu Ukrainy. 2021. № 5. S. 22–34. URL: https://ccu.gov.ua/library/konstytuciyna-skarga-u-poshukah-balansu-mizh-publichnym-ta-pryvatnym-interesom (in Ukr.).
15. Hultai M. M. Konstytutsiina skarha u mekhanizmi dostupu do konstytutsiinoho pravosuddia. Kyiv: TsUL, 2019. 270 s. (in Ukr.).
16. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights), November 4, 1950, ETS 5. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_004 (in Ukr.).
17. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, December 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_043  (in Ukr.)

Дата першого надходження рукопису до видання: 27.02.2026
Дата прийнятого до друку рукопису після рецензування: 09.04.2026
Дата публікації: 30.04.2026