The question of what judges are allowed to do under the title of interpreting the law and finding and filling gaps seems to be arising in a new form in our times, which are characterized by the increasing ideologisation and politicisation of cases.
Courts, administrators and scholars tend to disregard classical legal methodology, which basically demands that all elements of interpretation – text, history, purpose (telos), systematic position of the norm, constitution and, if necessary, comparative law – be taken into account.
The decisive factor seems to be the political goal that activist judges are determined to achieve. As a matter of principle, they are not prepared to question their pre-understanding.
Examples can be found in all legal systems and at all levels.
The Norwegian Supreme Court refuses to hear the appeal of the (potentially 100’000) victims of the biggest welfare scandal in the country since WW II, without giving reasons.
The Romanian Constitutional Court declares a presidential election invalid in a questionable ruling.
The Court of Justice of the European Union declares the Maltese program for acquiring citizenship against investment to be unlawful under EU law without any convincing justification.
The Swiss Federal Supreme Court approves the punishment of a famous all-male student fraternity on the basis of the unproven claim that membership is important for professional advancement.
Supporters of the planned Swiss-EU Framework Agreement in the Federal Administration and in academia limit themselves to a pure textual interpretation of the Constitution and say:
(a) in addition to the majority of the people, a majority of the cantons is required for accession to a supranational organization;
(b) with the Framework Agreement, Switzerland is not joining a supranational organization;
(c) consequently, the majority of the cantons is excluded.
According to the view expressed here, the politicisation of the courts is a disastrous development. However, the solution cannot be to prohibit judges from creating law.
This was preached by great minds as French writer and political philosopher Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, the Prussian King Frederick the Great, the German philosopher Immanuel Kant and the Milanese enlightenment lawyer Cesare Beccaria.
However, such mutilation would not meet the requirements of modern societies and economies. In general, there is little to be gained from rules of conduct for judges.
An exception applies to the obligation to disclose the underlaying value judgments and to state the real reasons.
It is, in particular for high courts, not enough to decree. If the court overrules a precedent, it must make this clear in the interests of legal certainty.
As to the rest, structural rules must be decisive. Greater attention must be paid to the selection of judges.
The proportion of judges who come from the bureaucracy (and have been socialised accordingly) must be limited.
Pure career judges who have done nothing else in their lives than judging must not be in the majority.
More transparency in the selection process is needed, since, as the Washington Post has famously stated, ‚democracy dies in darkness‘.
This means, among other things, that the hearings of candidates for the highest judicial offices must be public and that dissenting opinions must be possible.
Kommentare
Kommentieren
Die beliebtesten Kommentare
-
You name it perfectly: „Textual interpretation“!
Allegdely democratic behaviour is nowadays predetermined by institutional misdemeanor! Swiss Federal Council, European Commission and other „leaders“ show it almost daily.
It seems we definitely need more of yours, Valentin Landmann and alike to overcome this misery… -
Die Washington Post hat zwar diesen Slogan, fand es aber als Vierte Gewalt, die eigentlich die Mächtigen zur Rechenschaft ziehen soll nicht notwendig, eine Wahlempfehlung zur Präsidentschaftswahl abzugeben.
Halb so schlimm. „Democracy dies in darkness“ könnte auch der Titel eines Slayer-Albums sein.
-
Jö, keinen Cédric, noch weniger einen Fabian im amerikanischen Politsystem gefunden?
-
Ojeh, Bernie hat halt tatsächlich nicht mehr so lange.
-
-
Baudenbacher ist und bleibt eine tragische Figur.
-
Ja, er wird wohl missverstanden. Die zunehmend fehlende Gewaltentrennung empfinde ich als tragisch und destruktiv.
Die Exekutiven massen sich trotz fehlender Dossierfestigkeit Rechtsprechung an, die Judikative amtet nach Parteibüchlein!
Hildebrand/EWS, Ameti, Berset, etc. was braucht`s noch?!?
-
-
Schade, nur zwei Kommentare.Eigentlich sollten unsere Politiker das lesen. Aber nix Englisch.Achtung, der neue Anbindungsvertrag von Cassis ist in ENGLISCH.Mir schwant übles für die blinde Unterzeichnung.Und Englisch und EU-Vertrags-Englisch sind nochmals verschiedene Hüte.Bei den SVP Leuten kenne ich keinen, der dieses Vertragsenglisch versteht, weder Martullo, noch der zweite Leser.Die überheben sich alle. Daher Baudenbacher lesen, auf deutsch, in seinem Buch.
-
Nicht nur SVPler! Ich behaupte, dass kein Parlamentarier im Bundeshaus diese Verträge versteht.
Kein Beamter und kein Richter sollte das ganze Leben den gleichen Job machen dürfen. 10 Jahre Privatwirtschaft für jeden sollte das Minimum sein!
-
-
Swiss post-modern local interpretation and subordination to international laws may be a good reason for repulsion, if not mere disgust. However, reference to constitutional matters remains a repeatedly debated academic flaw upon its systemic lack thereof. Contrary to ignorant, but wide beliefs, the nation’s institutions – with the exception of enforcement personnel, that is – are not bound to adhere to their state or federal constitutions. It’d be a fatal error to believe that „a piece of paper,“ which is subject to petty amendments four times every year, would provide any legal backing of unity or intentions in a sense that commonly comes defined as republican. It is due to the lack of constitutional jurisdiction that exposure to international law is absolute, irreversible and factual.
-
-
Sehr guter Artikel, perfekt auf den Punkt gebracht: „Pure career judges who have done nothing else in their lives than judging must not be in the majority.“ Diese Forderung kann man nur unterstützen. Und im Hinblick auf unser planned Swiss-EU Framework Agreement äusserst wichtig. Das Volk sowieso, aber die Kantone zusätzlich, müssen über solch tiefgreifende Veränderungen entscheiden können.
-
And what does this all mean in Germany?
-
Use Deepl, that would help.
-
Nicht nur SVPler! Ich behaupte, dass kein Parlamentarier im Bundeshaus diese Verträge versteht. Kein Beamter und kein Richter sollte das…
Sehr guter Artikel, perfekt auf den Punkt gebracht: "Pure career judges who have done nothing else in their lives than…
Schade, nur zwei Kommentare.Eigentlich sollten unsere Politiker das lesen. Aber nix Englisch.Achtung, der neue Anbindungsvertrag von Cassis ist in ENGLISCH.Mir…