Judicial Deliberations

A Comparative Analysis of Transparency and Legitimacy

Nonfiction, Reference & Language, Law, Courts, Constitutional
Cover of the book Judicial Deliberations by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser, OUP Oxford
View on Amazon View on AbeBooks View on Kobo View on B.Depository View on eBay View on Walmart
Author: Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser ISBN: 9780191018848
Publisher: OUP Oxford Publication: October 21, 2004
Imprint: OUP Oxford Language: English
Author: Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
ISBN: 9780191018848
Publisher: OUP Oxford
Publication: October 21, 2004
Imprint: OUP Oxford
Language: English

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.

View on Amazon View on AbeBooks View on Kobo View on B.Depository View on eBay View on Walmart

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.

More books from OUP Oxford

Cover of the book A World History of Ancient Political Thought by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book Taking Care of Business by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book The Age of Em by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book Patent Litigation in China 2e by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book The Law of TUPE Transfers by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book The Price of Indifference: Refugees and Humanitarian Action in the New Century by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book The Infinite Cosmos by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book Guilt by Descent by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book Free-Ranging Dogs and Wildlife Conservation by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book Just War or Just Peace? by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book Concentrate Questions and Answers Contract Law by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book Madness:A Brief History by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book Offshore Financial Law by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book The Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book God & the Gothic by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
We use our own "cookies" and third party cookies to improve services and to see statistical information. By using this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy