Almanac of law. Issue 17 (2026), pages 96–102.

DOI: 10.33663/2524-017X-2026-17-96-102

Kubko E. В.
The Preclusive Effect as a Dynamic Principle of the Modern Doctrine of Law Enforcement

This article investigates the legal nature of the preclusive effect of court judgments that establish legal facts as a dynamic principle of the doctrine of law enforcement that is becoming established within the legal system of Ukraine. The author substantiates the need to consider the preclusive effect as an essential component of law enforcement, in addition to a procedural concept of evidentiary law, in the context of the convergence of legal systems. The conventional interpretation of the preclusive effect is shown to be evolving into a doctrinal generalization of it as an institution and a doctrine of law enforcement in the modern era. It has been concluded that the preclusive effect serves a systemic function by stabilizing the legal order, thereby ensuring the consistency and stability of judicial practice and, as a result, the stability of the legal system. The interconnection between the preclusive effect of judgments and the principles of legal certainty, the finality of judicial decisions, the prohibition of contradictory conduct, and other institutions and phenomena ensuring the rule of law is demonstrated. In addition, a comparative analysis is conducted with legal doctrines associated with preclusion theories, including estoppel, res judicata, and issue preclusion, which are employed in other countries and in the activities of international jurisdictional bodies. It is recommended to reevaluate the preclusive effect of court judgments that establish legal facts in light of the contemporary understanding of law, as this enables the perspective of viewing it as a dynamic principle of the modern doctrine of law enforcement.

Keywords: preclusive effect, law enforcement, judicial practice, legal certainty, legal standard, res judicata, issue preclusion, estoppel.

 References

1. Bondar S. Preiudytsiinist sudovykh rishen u tsyvilnomu sudochynstvi Ukrainy: teoretyko-prykladnyi aspekt: Monohrafiia. Odesa: Helvetyka, 2023. 214 s.
2. Iednist sudovoi praktyky yak zaporuka pravovoi vyznachenosti: kol. monohr. / za red. M. M. Shumyla. Kyiv: NaUKMA; Alerta, 2024. 456 s.
3. Kuznietsova S., Prytyka D. D. Protsesualni filtry ta preiudytsiia: poshuk balansu mizh efektyvnistiu ta spravedlyvistiu. Pravo Ukrainy. 2023. № 4. S. 12–28.
4. Smokovych I. Preiudytsialne znachennia rishen administratyvnykh sudiv dlia vyrishennia pryvatnykh sporiv. Visnyk hospodarskoho sudochynstva. 2024. №1. S. 5–14.
5. Vasylchenko V. Instytut preiudytsii v hospodarskomu protsesualnomu pravi Ukrainy: dys. … d-ra filos.: 081 Pravo. Kyiv: KNU im. T. Shevchenka, 2023. 230 s.
6. Pohrebniak P. Preiudytsiia ta standart dokazuvannia «poza rozumnym sumnivom» u kryminalnomu protsesi. Filosofiia prava i zahalna teoriia prava. 2022. № 2. S. 88–102. 
7. Postanova Verkhovnoho Sudu vid 03.2021 u spravi № 91/2961/19. 
8. Kubko Mizhnarodno-pravovi standarty v pravovii systemi Ukrainy. Almanakh prava. Pravova analityka: doktrynalni pidkhody ta haluzevi vymiry. Vypusk 9. Kyiv: In-t derzhavy i prava im. V. M. Koretskoho NAN Ukrainy, 2018. 512 s. S. 23–28. 
9. Kevin M. Cltrmont, Res Judicata: A Handbook on Its Theory, Doctrine, and Practice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016. 
10. Cavallini , Ariano E. Issue Preclusion out of the U.S.? The Evolution of the Italian Doctrine of Res Judicata in Comparative Contex. Indiana International & Comparative Law Review. 2021. Vol. 31. P. 1–34.

Дата першого надходження рукопису до видання: 19.03.2026
Дата прийнятого до друку рукопису після рецензування: 09.04.2026
Дата публікації: 30.04.2026