Historical experience of public participation in the administration of justice in Ukraine (17th–18th centuries) and its application in contemporary conditions

The article analyzes the historical experience of public participation in the administration of justice in Ukraine in the 17th–18th centuries and identifies the features of its application in modern conditions. It is noted that the historical experience of the organization and functioning of kopni courts in Ukraine testifies to the existence of democratic traditions of administering justice among the Ukrainian people. Ukrainian customary law provided for public participation in the administration of justice. National historical legal experience demonstrates that public participation in the administration of justice constitutes a characteristic feature of Ukrainian law, which was formed and functioned on Ukrainian lands over the course of centuries. It is emphasized that several principles may be derived from historical experience that remain relevant today, in particular: public participation in the administration of justice; publicity and openness of judicial proceedings; accountability of judges to the community; an orientation toward justice rather than formalism; and trust as the basis of judicial legitimacy. The historical experience of public participation in the administration of justice under modern conditions may be useful, in particular, for the development and strengthening of the jury system in Ukraine. Specifically, historical community participation may be adapted through the real (rather than formal) involvement of jurors; the expansion of categories of cases heard with jury participation; and the enhancement of the role of jurors in decision-making. This resonates with the Cossack tradition of collective decision-making. An important component of historical experience is the activation, under modern conditions, of public oversight of the judiciary. By analogy with the historical accountability of judges to the community, this includes the establishment of public councils at courts; participation of members of the public in disciplinary bodies; open court hearings; and access to court decisions. It is emphasized that historical experience confirms the importance of applying alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. Thus, customary law of the 17th–18th centuries often sought reconciliation rather than punishment. In modern conditions, this is reflected in mediation, conciliatory procedures, and restorative justice. A significant contemporary challenge is the need to enhance the legal culture of citizens. As in the past, effective public participation today is possible only on the condition of legal education of the population; the formation of a sense of responsibility for law and order; and trust between citizens and the judicial system. The historical experience of Ukraine shows that public participation in the administration of justice is traditional rather than borrowed from external sources; such participation contributes to the legitimacy of judicial decisions; and the restoration of elements of popular participation may increase trust in the judiciary, which is critically important under the current conditions of Russia’s war against Ukraine.