lobal order" at the XXIV World Congress of Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy at (Beijing, September 15, 2009):
"If support (enforcement) - fair (fair), effective and guaranteed security - is impossible, we must recognize that certain rights - is a human right and avoid to call for his support" [10 , c.114]. above position was criticized in Congress: in particular, noted that it ignores the concept of human rights, since the last such recognition should not depend on the will of the state and its ability to provide them. For example, the inability of the State to ensure the right to life does not deny such rights as human rights. debate showed the collision of different pravorozumin if their value not only for the understanding of human rights, but also to support them. , We can assume that the basis proposed above is essentially relativistic understanding of human rights is lehistske comprehension. In this case, it is assumed, as is the author quotes his representative, in this kind of comprehension is legal positivism. The latter also opposed yusnaturalizmu - comprehension, which, it should be noted, and owe study of the concept of human rights. can play an important role in judicial practice in the field of human rights. decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the "Sokurenko and Strigun v. Ukraine "(2006), the court, among other things, found that" exceeded his powers were clearly set out in the Commercial Procedure Code, the Supreme Court of Ukraine shall not be considered "tribunal established by law" within the meaning of Article 6 В§ 1 of the Convention concerning the proceedings "(paragraph 28 of the judgment). Finally, the ECHR found in the actions of the state of human rights violations. essentially held that since the Supreme Court of Ukraine acted outside the authority established by law, it can not be considered by the court in this case. In fact, the Court found that the Supreme Court can not in this case deemed to administer justice, and in fact - even considered by the court. It is believed that the court is "the authority of the State for the administration of justice ..." (VT Malyarenko). If so, we can assume that the authority of the state, which does not administer justice, can not be considered by the court [1, c.4]. demonstration of the value of comprehension - it is the Supreme Court of Ukraine on the claim "W. Yushchenko in the CEC "(2004). The court, according to critics, appointing the third round of voting in the presidential election, acted beyond the powers and ruled in their opinion, illegal decision. However, those who considered lawful judgment, emphasized that the Court was guided by the rule of law under which violations of the law (in this case suffrage) means a violation of law and human rights, upgrade which is the duty of the court. both cases, the courts applied some comprehension, which can generally be called judicial. Latter provides results th...
