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 The Oxford Handbook of Evidentiality by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book Fulke Greville and the Culture of the English Renaissance by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book Ypres by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book Cystic Fibrosis by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book The Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book Gravity! by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book Constitutional Referendums by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book The Cell: A Very Short Introduction by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book Alzheimer's and other Dementias by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book Rose's Strategy of Preventive Medicine by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book Cloud Computing Law by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book The Familiar Enemy by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book Decision Theory and Rationality by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book The Oxford Companion to Fairy Tales by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book German Literature: A Very Short Introduction 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