Abstract
The article provides a comprehensive analysis of the theoretical nature of judicial precedent as a source of law, the historical stages of its formation, and its place in contemporary legal systems. The aim of the study is to determine the legal significance of judicial precedent in the Anglo-Saxon and Romano-Germanic legal systems, to reveal its distinctive features through a comparative-legal approach, and to assess the possibilities of applying precedent within national legal systems. In the course of the research, historical, systemic, formal-legal and comparative-legal methods were employed; these approaches made it possible to trace the evolution of the emergence of precedent, to identify its role as a form of law-making, and to clarify its relationship with judicial practice. The findings show that, although judicial precedent has been established as a binding source of law in the common law system, in continental law countries it generally has an auxiliary or guiding character. In the United Kingdom, the strict binding force of precedent is consolidated through the doctrine of stare decisis, whereas in the United States its application is more flexible. In the RomanoGermanic legal system, courts primarily act as appliers of statutory law, and the binding force of precedent is not formally recognised. In conclusion, the study argues that judicial precedent, while constituting an important element of the mechanism of legal regulation, can be applied effectively only to the extent that it corresponds to national legal traditions, the degree of independence of the judiciary, and the prevailing legal culture.