Authors

Discussion

We will examine the role of supreme and constitutional courts in policymaking in Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Armenia. All these countries have courts that are based on the judicial structure established during the Soviet era, when courts typically had little scope for making policy independently of the executive. While in all four, the Supreme Courts primarily rule in individual cases rather than set broad policy. Similarly, while the main role of the Constitutional Courts is to uphold constitutional standards, the way in which they do so varies significantly. Even though they have some similarities in judicial institutions and state experience as once part of the Soviet Union, their impact on policymaking would vary because of differences in the political environments, level of judicial independence, and the role of law in the government. Passive policymaking remains the dominant role of Supreme Courts in the four countries because they only focus on case-specific interpretations, and their impacts on policymaking are very limited. The Constitutional Courts of Russia and Armenia hold a degree of influence on policy, especially on decisions concerning constitutional meaning. In Russia, however, this is crippled by the presence of strong executive leadership. In Belarus, the Constitutional Court's role is minimal, while Kazakhstan’s judiciary has restricted participation in policymaking. These differences outline that despite their similarities, the judicial bodies' role sets them apart because of the various political natures of each country.