Precedent Ideology and Judicial Legitimacy in Slovenia – An Outline

Tilen Štajnpihler Božič

Abstract


Within the broader framework of the discussion of the potential of judicial precedent for statutory legal systems, this paper focuses on certain sociological aspects of the role a system of judicial precedent can have in the functioning of a judicial system. Proceeding specifically from the Slovenian legal context, the paper outlines the importance of openly and explicitly cultivating a commitment to a system of judicial precedent or unified and settled case-law in legal discourse, on the level of legal culture or ideology. It is argued that acknowledging the manner in which a system of judicial precedent can contribute to the rule of law has the potential to increase public trust and confidence in the judiciary and thus judicial legitimacy.


Keywords


judicial precedent; case-law; rule of law; judicial legitimacy; precedent ideology; legal culture

Full Text:

PDF

References


Alexy R., Precedent in the Federal Republic of Germany, [in:] Interpreting Precedents, eds. N. MacCormick, R. Summers, Aldershot 1997.

Bańkowski Z. et al., Rationales for Precedent, [in:] Interpreting Precedents, eds. N. MacCormick, R. Summers, Aldershot 1997.

Bassok O., The Sociological-legitimacy difficulty, “Journal of Law and Politics” 2011, Vol. 26.

Bühlmann M., Kunz R., Confidence in the Judiciary: Comparing the Independence and Legitimacy of Judicial Systems, “West European Politics” 2011, Vol. 34(2), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2011.546576.

Cohen M., When Judges Have Reasons Not to Give Reasons: A Comparative Law Approach, “Washington & Lee Law Review” 2015, Vol. 72(2).

Cotterrell R., Law, Culture and Society: Legal Ideas in the Mirror of Social Theory, Aldershot 2006.

Diedrich F., Präjudizien im Zivilrech, Hamburg 2004.

Dolenc M., O nekaterih vprašanjih v zvezi z dopuščeno revizijo po ZPP-D, “Pravni letopis” 2009.

Duxbury N., The Nature and Authority of Precedent, Oxford 2008, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511818684.

European Commission, Flash Eurobarometer 385 – Justice in the EU, November 2013, http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/flash/fl_385_en.pdf [access: 10.02.2018].

European Commission, The 2017 EU Justice Scoreboard, Luxembourg 2017.

Friedman L.M., Legal Culture and Legal Development, “Law and Society Review” 1969, Vol. 4(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3052760.

Hyde A., The Concept of Legitimation in Sociology of Law, “Wisconsin Law Review” 1983.

Interpreting Precedents, eds. N. MacCormick, R. Summers, Aldershot 1997.

Komárek J., Judicial Lawmaking and Precedent in Supreme Courts, “LSE Law, Society and Economy Working Papers” 2011, No. 4.

Kozel R.J., The Rule of Law and the Perils of Precedent, “Michigan Law Review First Impressions” 2013, Vol. 111.

Kreuzbauer G., Topics in Contemporary Legal Argumentation: Some Remarks on the Topical Nature of Legal Argumentation in the Continental Law Tradition, “Informal Logic” 2008, Vol. 28(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v28i1.515.

Lasser M., Judicial Deliberations – A Comparative Analysis of Judicial Transparency and Legitimacy, Oxford 2004.

MacCormick N., Legal Reasoning, Oxford 2003.

Nelken D., Using The Concept of Legal Culture, “Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy” 2004, Vol. 29.

Novak A., Imago iudicis, štiri podobe iz idejne zgodovine sojenja, “Zbornik znanstvenih razprav” 2015, Vol. 75.

Novak M., Precedens in trmasta celina, IUS Kolumna, 7 August 2017, www.iusinfo.si/DnevneVsebine/Kolumna.aspx?Id=201276 [access: 07.11.2017].

Ost F., Sodnika trije liki: Jupiter, Heraklej, Hermes, “Revus” 2008, Vol. 8.

Pavčnik M., Teorija prava, Ljubljana 2011.

Peczenik A., On Law and Reason, Dordrecht–Boston–London 1989, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8381-5.

Rasmusen E., Judicial Legitimacy as a Repeated Game, “Journal of Law, Economics and Organization” 1994, Vol. 10(1), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/10.1.63.

Ruibal A., The Sociological Concept of Judicial Legitimacy: Notes of Latin American Constitutional Courts, “Mexican Law Review” 2010, Vol. 3(2).

Schauer F., Giving Reasons, “Stanford Law Review” 1995, Vol. 47, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1229080.

Schauer F., Precedent, “Stanford Law Review” 1987, Vol. 39, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1228760.

Schäller S., Präjudizien als selbstreferentielle Geltungsressource des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, [in:] Die Deutungsmacht der Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit, Hrsg. H. Vorländer, Weisbaden 2006.

Siltala R., A Theory of Precedent, Oxford–Portland (Oregon) 2000.

Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia, Kaj je sodna praksa?, www.sodisce.si/sodni_postopki/objave/2009021320342893 [access: 30.10.2017].

Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia, Otvoritev sodnega leta 2017, Ljubljana 2017.

Štajnpihler T., Precedenčni učinek sodnih odločb v pravnem utemeljevanju, Ljubljana 2012.

Štajnpihler T., The role of case law in judicial decision-making: A sociological perspective, “Sociologija: časopis za sociologiju, socijalnu psihologiju i socijalnu antropologiju” 2015, Vol. 57(4).

Štajnpihler T., Within Democracy’s Reach? Revisiting Some Objections to Judge-Made Law, [in:] The Rule of Law and the Challenges for Jurisprudence – Series Central and Eastern European Forum for Legal, Political, and Social Theory Yearbook, eds. P. Cserne, M. Könczöl, M. Soniewicka, Frankfurt a. Maine 2014.

Vrabec J. et al., Zadovoljstvo javnosti z delovanjem sodišč v Republiki Sloveniji, Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia, Ljubljana 2016.

Vranken J., Exploring the Jurist’s Frame of Mind, Deventer 2006.

Waldron J., Stare Decisis and the Rule of Law: A Layered Approach, “Michigan Law Review” 2012, Vol. 111(1).

Wróblewski J., The judicial application of law, Dordrecht–Boston–London 1992, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8050-2.

Zobec J., Od individualnega do javnega (precedenčnega) namena Vrhovnega sodišča: ustavnopravni vidik, “Podjetje in delo” 2015, Vol. 42(6–7).




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/sil.2018.27.1.143
Data publikacji: 2018-05-02 07:55:27
Data złożenia artykułu: 2018-02-12 21:39:32

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2018

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.