Abstract
|
1. We also would like to learn in a more explicit way about the impact of the past you hypothesize.
Court of aksakals is an interesting example of using the common law institution in the public administration system. It is not a court in the strict sense because it is not included in the judicial system. But in the opinion of local population, the courts of aksakals embody the state and official courts, and members of the courts of aksakals embody representatives of the state.
Court of aksakals has not appeared out of nowhere. In the kyrgyz patriarchal society it was traditional to delegate administrative functions to respected representatives of the patriarchal-feudal elite (bii, manapi, aksakals (elders). Later there was their institutionalization. Courts of biy began to be considered as feudal judicial institutions.
After the Soviet power came to the Central Asia and Kazakhstan feudal judicial institutions have been preserved until 1927 as specific and transitional forms of state and legal development. It operated along with the Soviet people's court.
But even after abolition of feudal judicial institutions, the rural population preserved the practice to solve disputes and local cases through traditional institutions. Tradition to respect the opinion of the older generation against the background of distrust of the modern judicial system, weak decentralization of authority, undeveloped local government fueled the growth of the prestige of common law institutions up to the middle of the 90th years of the last century.
Thus the establishment in 1995 of courts of aksakals was in fact "the legalization of the wise old age." The first president of the Kyrgyz Republic Askar Akayev recreated a patriarchal institution by using principles of continuity and heritage of the law. Attributes that have stood the test of time were preserved: the election of members of the courts of elders among the most respected citizens, simplified procedures for adjudication, the right to settle disputes on the basis of traditions of peoples of Kyrgyzstan.
Certainly, courts of aksakals can not be called successors of courts of biy, which were abolished by the Soviet authorities. They work a) in a very different time, b) came into being under different circumstances; c) solve different kinds of cases; d) settle disputes in a different way. However, their conceptual connection is obvious. For this reason I consider courts of aksakals in connection with the concrete experience of history. It is necessary to trace how this institution arose in history, what main stages in its development are took place, and in terms of this development to comprehend what it is now. This, in my understanding is the basis for the most correct, profound and comprehensive understanding of the place of the common law institution in the system of state bodies and local governments today, and identify prospects and development trends in the future.
2. Could you please explain *how* you want to study the problem?
The research methodology is based on a combination of strictly theoretical and applied approaches:
1. The analysis of national legislation in order to determine the status of court of aksakals allowed to make representation about the current situation, taking into account the historic and future aspects. As a result of using this method, it became possible to compile an appropriate legal material to reveal the contradictions and gaps in the existing legislation.
2. In order to analyze the practice of using the common law norms by courts of aksakals, and interaction of courts of aksakals with state courts, a free access database of judicial decisions of the Supreme Court and State archival materials were used.
3. Basis for the analysis of factual data on the functioning of courts of aksakals will be the collected by me materials of non-governmental organizations, namely, the reports about the seminars for members of courts of aksakals, and questioning results of members of court of aksakals.
4. To confirm the findings of the analysis, there were interviews carried out with respondents who have direct relevance to the studied problem: the judges of state courts, academics, and representatives of local government administration. The method of interviewing in this case clarifies the views of respondents on the observable problems because the necessary information could not be obtained any other way except directly from the respondents.
5. In order to illustrate some of my conclusions I make references to press articles, experts opinions and research results.
REVISED ABSTRACT
|
