The Problem of Protecting the Constitution at the Level of National Security is Always Relevant - Albert Yezerov, Judge of the Administrative Cassation Court within the Supreme Court

Albert Yezerov, Judge of the Administrative Cassation Court within the Supreme Court, took part in the International Scientific and Practical Conference "Constitutional Democracy in the Context of the Territorial Integrity and National Security Threats", held by the OSCE Project Coordinator in Ukraine, Ivan Franko National University of Lviv, and Ukrainian Journal of Constitutional Law.

The event, which took place on June 22, 2021, was organized within the framework of the "Constitutional Week" on the eve of the Constitution Day of Ukraine.

The conference was attended by leading experts (Ukrainian and international lawyers, academics and civil society representatives) who discussed ways to better protect human rights through the tools of constitutional justice.

Speaking on "Constitutional Security: A Conflictological Approach", Judge of the Administrative Cassation Court within the Supreme Court Albert Yezerov said that in a constitutional democracy the presence of constitutional conflicts was an integral part of social progress, as they arose, developed and were resolved within the framework of constitutional law, conflict itself was a natural systemic form of political and legal activity of legal subjects.

Constitutional security as a legal category demonstrates the state of protection of the constitutional order and the system of measures for its protection and includes the following negative factors which influence basic constitutional values: conflicts, gaps and other shortcomings in the legislation; discrepancies between natural law and positive norms; legal nihilism of the subjects of constitutional and legal relations, a low level of their legal culture; abuse of rights. These risk factors can manifest themselves in various actions that threaten the constitutional order: violation of the constitutional status of the Ukrainian state, the integrity and inviolability of its territory; violation of the supremacy of the Constitution as the Basic Law; confrontation of the authorities, etc.

The judge noted that ensuring constitutional security required the development of mechanisms which limit the negative manifestations of constitutional conflicts and create a system of procedural guarantees for their resolution by legal methods, as well as strengthening the role of law in social engineering, which is to harmonize interests in constitutional conflict.

Albert Yezerov summed up that any society had a certain potential for constitutional conflict and at the same time had a reserve of constitutional security. These parameters of constitutional reality are interdependent. Neither are there societies and states without conflicts, nor are there societies and states without a certain degree of a meaningful security level. The lower the level of constitutional conflict, the higher the level of constitutional security, the more actively and adequately the legal system can respond to various threats. That is, the security potential is determined by the conflict potential.

Albert Yezerov also remarked that the very existence of constitutional law, its main purpose and genetic essence were to make it impossible for the occurrence of violent manifestations in public and political life which lead to massive violations of fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens.

The main task of influencing the constitutional conflict process is not so much to resolve specific existing conflicts as to prevent future conflicts, to enhance the positive potential of existing conflicts, to streamline constitutional and legal relations in general.