Judicial lobbying as a result of the «judicialization of politics»

Abstract

The article examines the phenomenon of the growing influence of courts and judges on political processes and its correlation with lobbying in the judicial branch of government. The growing influence of courts in political processes has been defined in foreign literature as the “judicialization of politics,” which is associated with the development of democracies and is considered a natural phenomenon. Courts (mostly higher courts) in various political systems have assumed the role of arbitrators in political conflicts, which has given judges political influence and endowed them with the characteristics of political actors who, being independent, have an impact on political processes in one way or another. Over the past 10 years, international organizations have begun to speak openly about lobbying in the judicial branch of government, and at the end of 2025, Transparency International published a report entitled “Lobbying the Judiciary: Risks and Measures to Minimize Them,” which highlighted judicial lobbying as a new phenomenon that raises questions about the transparency of its activities. The article reveals how judicial lobbying is carried out. It notes that the methods (ways) of judicial lobbying in courts can be procedural (formal) and extra-procedural (informal). Examples of each method of judicial lobbying are also provided, and the need to regulate this process at the regulatory level is emphasized. It is noted that formal methods of judicial lobbying are characteristic of common law countries, and only the concept of informal judicial lobbying can be applied to the political system of Ukraine. In courts of the common law system (the US, the UK), lobbyists can influence court decisions by directly submitting their appeals within the framework of special procedures, which is not the case in Ukraine. Informal methods of judicial lobbying (e.g., events, training, appointments, etc.) are relevant to most political systems and, although they are not lobbying activities in essence, they are ways that allow a conditional lobbyist to influence the decision that will be made by a conditional judge in resolving a particular political issue.