Chapter

On Judicial Debate, Deliberation, and Legitimacy

Mitchel de S.-O.-l’E. Lasser

in Judicial Deliberations

Published in print July 2009 | ISBN: 9780199575169
Published online January 2010 | e-ISBN: 9780191706714 | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199575169.003.0011

Series: Oxford Studies in European Law

On Judicial Debate, Deliberation, and Legitimacy

Show Summary Details

Preview

The judicial systems of France, the United States, and the European Union as represented by the Cour de cassation, Supreme Court, and the European Court of Justice, respectively, take rather different approaches to a series of fundamental debate and deliberation issues. First, who should be engaged in debates about judicial decision-making? Second, where should these debates be held and/or found? And, third, what kinds of debates should be had? By answering these questions differently, the three judicial systems produce very different models of democratic debate, deliberation, and legitimacy in the judicial context. This chapter examines how (and why) the French, American, and EU judicial systems each align their respective (and quite different) approaches to the issues of judicial transparency, accountability, and control, as well as judicial debate and judicial deliberation.

Keywords: Cour de cassation; Supreme Court; European Court of Justice; France; United States; judicial systems; judicial deliberation; judicial transparency

Chapter.  16175 words. 

Subjects: Comparative Law

Full text: subscription required

How to subscribe Recommend to my Librarian

Buy this work at Oxford University Press »

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.