The purpose of the study was to identify key barriers preventing the effective application of generally accepted norms and principles of international law in criminal proceedings. The study was devoted to the analysis of the problems of the implementation of international standards in the national legislation of the Kyrgyz Republic and the Republic of Kazakhstan. The methodology included a comparative legal analysis of national legislation and a regulatory analysis of international standards in this area. The results of the study showed that, despite the formal recognition of international standards of criminal justice, their effective implementation in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan faces several legal, institutional and sociopolitical challenges. Among the key barriers, legal gaps have been identified, allowing for variability in the interpretation of international law norms, which leads to their unsystematic and often selective application. In addition, insufficient harmonization of national legislation with international obligations was noted, especially regarding the protection of the rights of the accused, extradition, immunity of officials and respect for procedural guarantees. An analysis of the institutional framework revealed limited independence of the judiciary, high levels of corruption in law enforcement agencies and insufficient effectiveness of international cooperation mechanisms. Based on the identified problems, recommendations for improving the criminal justice system were proposed. In particular, the need to eliminate legal gaps and improve mechanisms for interpreting and adapting international norms in national legislation was substantiated. An important area of reform is related to ensuring the independence of the judicial system through the introduction of transparent mechanisms for the selection and rotation of judges, and strengthening responsibility for violations of procedural norms.

This article analyses the performance of the Chinese judiciary in administrative ligation during the recent period of reform using a dataset of over 1.6 million judicial documents. Contrary to conventional wisdom, we find compelling evidence that the judiciary has become increasingly significant in checking the power of the government. Courts accepted 79 per cent more cases from 2014 to 2020, and plaintiffs’ win rate against the government rose from 33.2 per cent to 42.2 per cent. This increase is even more pronounced in cases with a strong impact on local government, such as those reviewing land expropriations and police penalties. Judicial authority has improved, with chief government officials attending more than 50 per cent of trials as defendants. Our findings illustrate a judiciary that is on the rise, but there are fundamental limits to its ascent. Courts remain silent on citizens’ political rights. Judges are reluctant to conduct substantive reviews of government actions beyond procedural matters. These findings support a tripartite theory for understanding the rule of law in China, where the law and the judiciary are instrumental in routine and even hard cases, but their power rapidly wanes in the face of politics.