Humanities & Social Sciences 10 (2016 9) 2449-2459 ~ ~ ~ УДК 341.98 Judicial Dissents: Legal and Linguistic Aspects Olga A. Krapivkina* Irkutsk National Research Technical University 83 Lermontova Str., Irkutsk, 664074, Russia Received 10.06.2016, received in revised form 22.07.2016, accepted 17.09.2016 Attention to the issue of judicial dissenting is caused by growing popularity of this type of writing among the judges of the Russian Constitutional Court. <...> The article has investigated the nature of the dissenting opinion, its main traits and functions from legal and linguistic points of view, arguments for and against this genre of judicial writing. <...> The author attempts to find out why judges dissent – to lay out an alternative legal theory, to convince the majority of their errors or to express disagreement. <...> The author concludes that the dissenting opinion is an individualistic genre of judicial discourse where the judge is free to use a great variety of language units to mark their own identity. <...> The author also argues that the rationale and usefulness of dissents in the judiciary depend on the legal traditions of the nation. <...> Introduction One of the main principles of the judiciary is the independence of judges. <...> Among the tools to provide the independence of judges, one can mention the institute of dissenting opinions – a possibility for the judge who has remained in the minority in the voting to add his/her individual voice to the institutional position of the majority. <...> Does it endanger the unity of the court, undermine its © Siberian Federal University. <...> All rights reserved * Corresponding author E-mail address: g07@istu.edu – 2449 – authority, or does it democratize the judiciary, make it more transparent? <...> Does it weaken the objectivity of the majority opinion, or does it strengthen its authority and credibility? <...> Although the right of Russian judges to dissent is deeply rooted, Russia generally disallowed publishing of dissenting opinions, principally because of their emphasis on collegiality in the dispensation of justice. <...> This issue has only seldom appeared in contemporary academic research (see Basangov, 2006; Kononov, 2006; Vereshchagin, 2007). <...> It is a sign of the stability and effectiveness of judicial power, the independence of courts and judges. <...> The British collegial common law courts decide seriatim (Latin: separately) – they present not <...>