Judicial deliberations : a comparative analysis of judicial transparency and legitimacy

Mitchel de S.-O.-L'E. Lasser

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.

「Nielsen BookData」より

[目次]

  • 1. Introduction
  • PART I: THE THREE COURTS - RAW ANALYSIS
  • 2. The French Bifurcation
  • 3. The American Unification
  • 4. The European Union: Discursive Bifurcation Revisited
  • PART II: BIFURCATION
  • 5. Similarity and Difference
  • 6. France: How is the discursive bifurcation maintained?
  • 7. The ECJ: The French bifurcation reworked
  • PART III: COMPARISON
  • 8. The Sliding Scales
  • 9. Apples and Oranges
  • 10. On Judicial Transparency, Control, and Accountability
  • 11. On Judicial Debate, Deliberation, and Legitimacy
  • 12. Concluding Postscript
  • Bibliography

「Nielsen BookData」より

この本の情報

書名 Judicial deliberations : a comparative analysis of judicial transparency and legitimacy
著作者等 Lasser Mitchel De S.-O.-L'E.
Lasser Mitchel de S.-O.-L'E
シリーズ名 Oxford studies in European law
出版元 Oxford University Press
刊行年月 2004
ページ数 382 p.
大きさ 25 cm
ISBN 0199274126
NCID BA69750792
※クリックでCiNii Booksを表示
言語 英語
出版国 イギリス
この本を: 
このエントリーをはてなブックマークに追加

このページを印刷

外部サイトで検索

この本と繋がる本を検索

ウィキペディアから連想