Chapter

Concluding Postscript

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/9780199575169.003.0012

Series: Oxford Studies in European Law

Concluding Postscript

Show Summary Details

Preview

This book has proposed an organisational prism for the comparative understanding of the judicial systems of France, the United States, and the European Union, one that turns on the bifurcated or integrated structure of their respective argumentative practices and on their institutional or argumentative means of generating judicial legitimacy. Whereas the French Cour de cassation model is known for its radical bifurcation, the U.S. Supreme Court discourse is precisely (and in contrast) the publicly integrated or conglomerate form of its legitimating judicial argumentation, which is to say the way in which it integrates both its more formalising and its more policy-oriented discourses in one and the same publicly accessible space: the judicial opinion itself. This approach obviously places enormous power in — but also enormous strain on — the American judicial decision. The European Court of Justice model softens the radical French bifurcation by publishing and thus tempering its two discourses.

Keywords: Cour de cassation; Supreme Court; European Court of Justice; France; United States; judicial systems; judicial decision; judicial opinion; judicial legitimacy; judicial argumentation

Chapter.  1726 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.