The article is devoted to revealing the features of formalism and realism as styles of judicial interpretation. It is proved that the effective and enforceability of the law as a whole depends on the effective enforcement. Judicial enforcement is the last stage of enforcement as a whole. The court, through judicial enforcement, reveals the content of a rule of law in its course of action, completes it or establishes its true meaning through interpretation.
It is argued that the use of formalism and realism as styles of judicial interpretation leads to the formation of two independent styles of justice. It is stated that, in the practical plane, the distinction between formalism and realism looks so that the judge should start from the written text of the act, applying the priority of the principle of legality. The will of the "author of the text" is also taken into account. Formalism, given the rapid nature of social relations and therefore the change in legal reality, is generally associated with the risk of making unfair judgments. Judicial realism, on the contrary, considers it possible for judges to appeal to considerations of morality, policy and the like. It is proved that a realistic approach is necessarily linked with voluntarism that exists in "hard" and "soft" forms. This gives you the opportunity to be a realistic approach, radical or moderate. If the judge is empowered to set the contents (meaning) of the text that is interpreted, it is absolutely arbitrary – arbitrary, that is, without any connection with the semantics of the text, then voluntarism is evident in "hard" form. Judicial realism is able to use strong arguments, and is therefore able to meet the requirements of justice and (or) the effective court decisions in the socio-economic and political circumstances change rapidly. Popular here is the application context of the application of the law. These approaches in the theory of law also called static and dynamic (one that fits right to life) ways of interpretation. At the same time, we must not forget about the possibility of a miscarriage of justice during the administration of justice. It is a properly defined legally significant circumstances in connection with this incorrect conclusion of the court made on the basis of given factual circumstances.
A realistic approach is necessarily linked with voluntarism that exists in "hard" and "soft" forms. This gives you the opportunity to be a realistic approach, radical or moderate. If the judge is empowered to set the contents (meaning) of the text that is interpreted, it is absolutely arbitrary – arbitrary, that is, without any connection with the semantics of the text, then voluntarism is evident in "hard" form. Example of rigid forms of realism may be the use of judicial discretion when the court and not the legislator is actually created a new rule of conduct.
Key words: judicial interpretation, judicial enforcement, formalism, realism, styles judicial interpretation, voluntarism.
Limits of Autonomy in Criminal Law
