Judicial Deliberations: A Comparative Analysis of Transparency and Legitimacy

Judicial Deliberations: A Comparative Analysis of Transparency and Legitimacy

4.11 - 1251 ratings - Source



Judicial Deliberations compares how and why the European Court of Justice, the French Cour de cassation and the US Supreme Court offer different approaches for generating judicial accountability and control, judicial debate and deliberation, and ultimately judicial legitimacy. Examining the judicial argumentation of the United States Supreme Court and of the French Cour de cassation, the book first reorders the traditional comparative understanding of the difference between French civil law and American common law judicial decision-making. It then uses this analysis to offer the first detailed comparative examination of the interpretive practice of the European Court of Justice. Lasser demonstrates that the French judicial system rests on a particularly unified institutional and ideological framework founded on explicitly republican notions of meritocracy and managerial expertise. Law-making per se may be limited to the legislature; but significant judicial normative administration is entrusted to State selected, trained, and sanctioned elites who are policed internally through hierarchical institutional structures. The American judicial system, by contrast, deploys a more participatory and democratic approach that reflects a more populist vision. Shunning the unifying, controlling, and hierarchical French structures, the American judicial system instead generates its legitimacy primarily by argumentative means. American judges engage in extensive debates that subject them to public scrutiny and control. The ECJ hovers delicately between the institutional/argumentative and republican/democratic extremes. On the one hand, the ECJ reproduces the hierarchical French discursive structure on which it was originally patterned. On the other, it transposes this structure into a transnational context of fractured political and legal assumptions. This drives the ECJ towards generating legitimacy by adopting a somewhat more transparent argumentative approach.Lenza#39;s answer immediately concedes that ECJ preliminary rulings do not have erga omnes effect. Preliminary rulings, after all, are given to abstract ... therefore, a Member State can no longer define itself. 37 Costanzo (citations omitted).


Title:Judicial Deliberations: A Comparative Analysis of Transparency and Legitimacy
Author: Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Publisher:OUP Oxford - 2004-10-21
ISBN-13:

You must register with us as either a Registered User before you can Download this Book. You'll be greeted by a simple sign-up page.

Once you have finished the sign-up process, you will be redirected to your download Book page.

How it works:
  • 1. Register a free 1 month Trial Account.
  • 2. Download as many books as you like (Personal use)
  • 3. Cancel the membership at any time if not satisfied.


Click button below to register and download Ebook
Privacy Policy | Contact | DMCA