Dissenting opinions: A comparative perspective
The essay discusses the phenomenon of judicial dissent from a comparative perspective, with special focus on European constitutional courts most of which allow the publication of dissenting opinions. It presents the most common arguments for and against the publication of dissent, discusses dissenting opinions’ difficult relationship with certain fundamental principles, such as judicial independence and legal certainty, and examines their personal dimension, i.e. the judges’ point of view. Finally, it reflects on the compatibility of dissenting opinions with the perceived role of the judge in the civil law tradition.
Table of contents
- 1. Introduction
- 2. The publication of dissenting opinions: pros and cons
- 3. Independence vs transparency: A difficult balance
- 3.1. Dissenting opinions and judicial independence
- 3.2. Dissenting opinions and transparency of decision-making
- 4. Judicial dissent and legal certainty
- 4.1. Legitimacy, the majority principle and the «consistency» element of legal certainty
- 4.2. The «predictability» element of legal certainty
- 5. The judges’ point of view
- 5.1. The personal dimension of separate opinions
- 5.2. Judicial dissent and the freedom of expression
- 6. Conclusive remarks: Judicial dissent and the civil law tradition
Loggen Sie sich bitte ein, um den ganzen Text zu lesen.
