Методика забезпечення безпеки судової влади
Judicial security activities are organizational in nature. However, due to the peculiarities and guarantees of the separation of the independent branch of the judiciary, the specifics of the status of judges and courts, the possibilities of organizational activities aimed at ensuring their security are quite strictly regulated and based on the law.
From a methodological point of view, the imposition of restrictions on any organizational activity is accompanied by both advantages and disadvantages - "pros and cons". An indisputable advantage is the possibility of establishing guarantees, the implementation of which is ensured by the state, and non-compliance entails liability established by law. This advantage is especially important for ensuring the independence of the judiciary, as it takes the issue of relevant processes beyond the subjective will of persons or bodies endowed with power. The enshrinement in the law of a specific guarantee of independence, with some exceptions, does not allow to directly ignore this guarantee when making certain decisions by other branches of government.
Ensuring the security of the judiciary, despite the urgency of the issue and the numerous threats to the security of the court and judges that have been observed in recent years, has rarely been the subject of legal research. In view of this, taking into account the existing research on the security of the court and the judge, on the one hand, and international standards of justice on the other, it is important to generalize the methodological principles of ensuring the security of the judiciary.
The article describes the methodological principles of ensuring the security of the judiciary. It is proved that due to the peculiarities of ensuring the security of the judiciary as a subject of legal regulation for the development of quality methodology should take into account the provisions of international standards of the judiciary. The analysis of the main international standards of the judiciary indicated their general strategic and universal nature and, at the same time, allowed to identify quite specific recommendations for ensuring the security of the judiciary in certain areas