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 Causation: A Very Short Introduction by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book Luminescence Spectroscopy of Semiconductors by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book A Child of One's Own by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book Ancient Egypt: A Very Short Introduction by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book An Introduction to Ecological Genomics by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book The Three Laws of International Investment by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book The Anatomy of Corporate Law by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book Philosophy in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book Staying Power by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book Dispositional Pluralism by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book EU Customs Law by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book Humean Nature by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book Retirement System Risk Management by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book When God Took Sides by Mitchel de S.-O.-l'E. Lasser
Cover of the book The Return of Alsace to France, 1918-1939 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