We argue that the current understanding of politics is caught in a tug of war between “economistic” and “postmodern” views, neither of which captures the distinctiveness of political rule and consequently instills confusion among citizens and misplaced expectations from leaders. Drawing largely on Aristotle, who warned precisely against this error, we consider the logic of mastery and contrast it to paternal rule. Then we discuss the voluntary nature of economic activity to distinguish it from the involuntary nature of mastery, before turning to discuss the political proper, which is a combination or mixture of these two that nevertheless makes it qualitatively distinct. These distinctions help us to better appreciate what is a likeness between political and economic, on the one hand, and between political and paternal, on the other while realising that political rule is not exhausted by either economic or paternal alone. The paper seeks to show that political rule finds itself as an in-between condition that balances itself against despotic, mastery, and the kind of care that paternal rule points to.

Judicial Decisions of the Court of Cassation in Administrative Proceedings of Ukraine

The article analyzes the legal nature of court decisions of the Supreme Court as a court of cassation in the administrative proceedings of Ukraine. The concept and role played by court decisions of the court of cassation in administrative proceedings are defined. The types of court decisions of the Supreme Court as a court of cassation in the administrative proceedings of Ukraine are systematized. It is emphasized that the Supreme Court as a court of cassation within the limits set by the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine, adopts rulings and rules. The decision on the cassation appeal is essentially made in the decision, which is final and not subject to further appeal. At the same time, the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine provides for the possibility of adopting an additional resolution. It is emphasized that additional court decisions are made when all procedural issues have not been resolved by a ruling, in particular the issue of court costs. Such an additional decision is made by the court of cassation, which issued the main decision in the case. The content and structure of resolutions and rulings of the court of cassation in the administrative proceedings of Ukraine are studied. It is noted that although the procedural law distinguishes four components of court decisions: introductory, descriptive, motivational and operative parts, the Supreme Court in its rulings proposes a broader structure of court decisions. Many decisions of the Supreme Court reflect the following elements: introduction; the essence of the dispute; the factual circumstances of the case established by the courts; decisions of courts of first and appellate instances and motives for their adoption; cassation appeal; relevant sources of law and acts of their application; the position of the Supreme Court; court costs; operative part. It is emphasized that important in terms of resolving the case in fact play resolutions, which formalize the completion of the case, address the main issues and requirements of the cassation appeal, as well as the response to the cassation appeal. It is noted that the decisions are made on various procedural issues related to the progress of the case, motions and applications of the parties, the issue of adjournment of the case, adjournment, suspension of proceedings, etc. The type of judicial acts of the Supreme Court is singled out as a separate ruling by which the court can respond to violations of the law, in particular for abuse of procedural rights, violation of procedural duties, improper performance of professional duties by lawyers or prosecutors. which may bring the relevant persons to disciplinary responsibility.

Direct Effect of Applicability of the Ruling of the Constitutional Tribunal after Publishing it

The subject of this elaboration is legal effect of the ruling of the Constitutional Tribunal, that arises after it has been published. The purpose of this elaboration is to present doubts related to application of rulings of the Constitutional Tribunal, based on the art. 8 para. 2 of the Constitution due to the art. 118 and 190 of the Constitution. Pursuant to these articles, the ruling is given legal effect after its publication, not earlier. By adjudicating with regard to the provision being at variance with the Constitution, the Constitutional Tribunal actually imposes the effect on the legal system in the form of repeal of this provision. On the one hand the legal system becomes constitutional but on the other a legal loophole may arise from lack of regulations.