On the essential elements of procedural violations

Abstract

Procedural violations remain insufficiently studied, with no consistent methodological framework currently in use to support the development of viable branch-specific theories of violations of criminal, civil, and arbitration proceedings or to guide law enforcement practices associated with them. In this article, the general concept of “elements of a violation” is defined. Some of its most controversial aspects are analyzed. The universality of the four-element crime constitution theory is substantiated. The concepts of “violation” and “elements of a violation” are distinguished. The object of a procedural violation is characterized. The results show that the direct object of a procedural violation is represented by procedural legal relations, while the general object of all procedural relations is the procedural legal order, and the specific objects include a variety of forms of justice administration. The conclusion is made that most procedural violations take the form of inactions and are often described using standard and evaluative terms. The study proves that the court does not act as the subject of a procedural violation. The absence of a minimum age threshold for procedural liability is considered as a lacuna in procedural rules that should be remedied.