Hide
Show all
Email this article Does la bouche de la loi Have Anything to Say in Democracy? An Exercise in Legal Imagination
Abstract
The article uses the potential of spatial imagination to discuss challenges judicial power and judges face nowadays, due to fierce philosophical and theoretical debates over the future of democracy and various “democratic innovations”. To identify and discuss possible reactions to these new challenges, we refer to the three-level concept of the political universe. It is argued that the “modern” legal and political imagination has neglected the importance of the most basic of these levels, namely the level of commonly shared cultural values. In effect, as Montesquieu famously summarized, judges became “no more than the mouth that pronounces the words of the law”. This traditional view is still persistent in legal debates but proves to be more and more insufficient, as it does not allow lawyers to take an active part in contemporary political and constitutional debates. Unfortunately, the attempts to overcome it are often far from being satisfactory, as they focus on justifying or criticising allegedly inevitable “politicization” of the judiciary. In effect, both images encourage competition rather than a dialogue, which may in fact hinder understanding and responding to new political processes. In the conclusions of the article, we suggest that the history of European political and legal traditions offers a possibility to go beyond such neutral-political opposition towards a more complicated view, which is at the same time more attuned to unending struggles for and with democracy.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
LITERATURE
Agresto J., The Supreme Court and Constitutional Democracy, Ithaca 1984, DOI: https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501712913.
Amsterdam A.G., Bruner J., Minding the Law, Cambridge–London 2002.
Aron R., The end of the ideological age?, [in:] The End of Ideology Debate, ed. C.I. Waxman, New York 1968.
Barak A., The Judge in a Democracy, Princeton–Oxford 2008, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400827046.
Bauman Z., The Liquid Modernity, Cambridge 2000.
Ceglarska A., Law as a Fable: The Issue of Myth in the Interpretation of Law, “Studia Iuridica Lublinensia” 2021, vol. 30(2), DOI: https://doi.org/10.17951/sil.2021.30.2.49-61.
Crick B., In Defence of Politics, Chicago 1962.
Democracy Under Threat, ed. U. van Beek, Cham 2019.
Douzinas C., Gearey A., Critical Jurisprudence: The Political Philosophy of Justice, Oxford–Oregon 2005.
Douzinas C., Perrin C., Critical Legal Theory, vol. 1–4, London 2011.
Downs A., An Economic Theory of Democracy, New York 1957.
Easton D., An Approach to the Analysis of Political Systems, “World Politics” 1957, vol. 9(3), DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2008920.
Eatwell R., Goodwin M., National Populism: The Revolt against Liberal Democracy, London 2018.
Ellett F.S., Practical Rationality and a Recovery of Aristotle’s “Phronesis” for the Professions, [in:] Phronesis as Professional Knowledge: Practical Wisdom in the Professions, eds. E.A. Kinsella, A. Pitman, Rotterdam 2012, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-731-8_2.
Facio A., The Law: An Art or a Science?, “Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law” 2011, vol. 7(2).
Flyvbjerg B., Making Social Science Matter, New York 2001, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810503.
Foucault M., Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, London 2019.
Gardocki L., Naprawdę jesteśmy trzecią władzą, Warszawa 2008.
Graham B., Ashworth G., Tunbridge J., A Geography of Heritage, London–New York 2016, DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315824895.
Leszczyński L., Open Axiology in Judicial Interpretation of Law and Possible Misuse of Discretion, “Studia Iuridica Lublinensia” 2020, vol. 29(3), DOI: https://doi.org/10.17951/sil.2020.29.3.39-54.
Letwin S.R., On the History of the Idea of Law, New York 2005, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511490613.
Lukes S., Power: A Radical View, London 2004, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-80257-5_2.
Marquard O., In Defense of the Accidental: Philosophical Studies, New York–Oxford 1991.
Medearis J., Joseph Schumpeter’s Two Theories of Democracy, Cambridge 2001, DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674186439.
Montesquieu C. de, Spirit of Laws, Kitchener 2001.
Mouffe C., Return of the Political, London 1993.
Nora P., Realms of Memory, New York 1996.
Offe C., Varieties of Transition: The East European and East German Experience, Cambridge 1996.
Painter J., Jeffrey A., Political Geography: An Introduction to Space and Power, London 2009.
Peretti T.J., In Defense of a Political Court, Princeton 1999, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400823352.
Petrażycki L., Law and Morality, Cambridge 1955, DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674434400.
Pound N.R., Interpretations of Legal History, Cambridge 1923.
Sachs A., The Myth of Judicial Neutrality: The Male Monopoly Cases, “The Sociological Review” 1975, vol. 23(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1975.tb00034.x.
Schlafly P., The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It, Dallas 2004.
Schmitt C., The Concept of the Political, Chicago 1996.
Seligman A.B., Individualism as Principle: Its Emergence, Institutionalization, and Contradictions, Political Philosophy, “Indiana Law Journal” 1997, vol. 72(2).
Susen S., The ‘Postmodern Turn’ in the Social Sciences, Basingstoke 2015, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137318237.
Van de Valle S., Trust in the Justice System: A Comparative View Across Europe, “Prison Service Journal” 2009, no. 183.
ONLINE SOURCES
Algan Y., Guriev S., Papaioannou E., Passari E., The European trust crisis and the rise of populism, 2018, https://bg.uek.krakow.pl//e-zasoby/siec_lokalna/Ebor/w208.pdf (access: 13.3.2021).
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/sil.2022.31.2.85-99
Date of publication: 2022-06-22 09:37:19
Date of submission: 2021-03-20 17:42:15
Statistics
Indicators
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2022 Iwona Barwicka-Tylek, Anna Ceglarska
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.