Non-arbitrariness, rule of law and the ‘margin of appreciation’: Comments on Andreas Follesdal

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 139-150
Author(s):  
GIANLUIGI PALOMBELLA
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Internal Organization ◽  
Positive Law ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
Principle Of Legality

AbstractCan citizens’ interest in non-domination be satisfied by the principle of legality and the guarantee of non-arbitrariness? This comment argues that the rule of law requires an internal organization of law that entails an additional positive law, through conventions, common law, judicial precedents or constitutions, which the sovereign cannot legally override. In the supranational context, the rule of law requires an equilibrium of consideration and respect between different legalities by avoiding a legal monopoly of a supreme authority and fostering the interaction among orders based on content-dependent reasons. The same applies to the relations between the ECtHR and member states. The margin of appreciation, taken as a reminder of the complexities of international institutional relationships, embodies a non-domination caveat to consider (the reasons from) the ‘normativities’ of different orders. Nonetheless, as an argumentative tool of the Court, it allows for an often-disputed discretion. Accordingly, better refined guidelines and justifications are required.

The Constitution of Law: Legality in a Time of Emergency by David Dyzenhaus, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). 250pp. Page numbers in text are to this book.

2008 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 477-483
Author(s):  
Jamie Cameron
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Middle Ground ◽  
Cambridge University ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Legislative Action ◽  
The Common ◽  
Constitutive Properties ◽  
Principle Of Legality

What the rule of law means and how it constrains the exercise of state power raise issues which have been debated-without resolution-over the ages. Times of emergency bring fresh energy to the discussion, and David Dyzenhaus is one of many who have entered the fray to debate the balance between liberty and national security in the post 9/11 period. It has not been easy for those who place their trust in written constitutions to account for the way textual guarantees are diluted when the state is under threat. Rather than address that dilemma, Dyzenhaus sets his ideas apart by proposing a theory which maximizes the protection of rights in emergency circumstances, without straining the institutional capacities or legitimacy of the judiciary. This theory invokes the pedigree of the common law-and “common law constitutionalism”-and is grounded in the constitutive properties of the rule of law, or principle of legality. Dyzenhaus may not have answered the questions readers will want to ask, but he has opened up the middle ground between the competing supremacies yet more, by drawing common law constitutionalism and its rule-of-law pedigree into constitutional theories of review. More to the point, he has challenged the judiciary to draw on the moral resources of the law to make executive and legislative action as accountable as possible at all times, in emergencies as well as in normal times. Readers can and should engage, at many levels, with the complexity of his thought in this important book.

The Limits of Positivist Legal Ethics: A Brief History, a Critique, and a Return to Foundations

2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 443-465 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Bradley Wendel
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Political Community ◽  
The Political ◽  
Legal Ethics ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Positive Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
Anglo American

The “positivist turn” in legal ethics has found many scholars in the Anglo-American common-law world relating the duties of lawyers to the rights and duties assigned by the law to their clients. On this view, the role of lawyers should be understood as contributing to the law’s function of resolving conflict and establishing a framework for cooperation in a pluralist society. Critics of positivist legal ethics have suggested that it is impossible for lawyers to avoid resorting to moral considerations when representing clients. These critics claim that the guidance provided by law runs out at critical moments, leaving a lawyer no choice but to fall back on the moral considerations supposedly pre-empted by positive law. In particular they argue that the law cannot determine its own application, and normative questions remain regarding the interpretive attitude lawyers ought to take when representing clients. This paper responds to critics of positivist legal ethics by returning to foundations, specifically the values underpinning the rule of law as a practice of giving reasons based on norms established in the name of the political community.

scholarly journals THE JUDGE AND THE RULE OF LAW

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 281-302
Author(s):  
David F. Forte
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Judicial Independence ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
American System ◽  
Positive Law ◽  
The Common ◽  
Moral Limits

In the American system of justice, based on the common law method, the judge enjoys greater independence than do the judges in Civil Law systems. Independence of the judiciary is essential in a system of checks and balances where the more powerful elements of the legislature and the executive must be limited by legally enforced principles. At the same time, judicial independence is constrained within moral limits by a system of positive law rules that direct the judge to make reasoned judgments that he must justify by open opinions.

Reaktualisasi Proses Penyidikan oleh Kepolisian Berbasis Nilai-Nilai Pancasila dan Optimalisasi Pemanfaatan Teknologi

Jurnal Hukum ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 1737
Author(s):  
Ira Alia Maerani
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Public Confidence ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Positive Law ◽  
Use Of Technology ◽  
The Times

Abstract                Indonesian Criminal Justice System consists of the police, public prosecutor and the courts. The role of the police investigators is certainly vital as the frontline in building public confidence in the rule of law in Indonesia. The role of the investigator is quite important in realizing society’s  justice. The era of globalization requires a pattern fast-paced, instant, measurable, and transparent of life and it requires investigators to follow the times by optimizing the use of technology. The aim of this study is to give effect to the rule of law in Indonesia that provides fairness, expediency and certainty. However, it considers to have priority of Pancasila values in the process of inquiry and investigation. The values of supreme divinity, God (religious), humanity, unity, democracy and justice are values that establish a balance (harmony) in enforcing the law. Law and its implementation can create product which meets the demands for social justice. This paper will examine the role of the investigator according to positive law currently in force as well as the role of investigator in implementing the values of Pancasila, accompanied by optimizing the use of technology. Keywords: Re-actualizing, Investigation, Police, values of Pancasila, Technology   AbstrakSistem Peradilan Pidana Indonesia meliputi institusi kepolisian, kejaksaan, dan pengadilan. Peran penyidik dalam institusi kepolisian tentunya amat vital sebagai garda terdepan dalam membangun kepercayaan masyarakat terhadap penegakan hukum di Indonesia. Peran penyidik amat besar dalam terwujudnya keadilan di masyarakat. Era globalisasi yang menuntut pola kehidupan yang serba cepat, instan, terukur, dan transparan menuntut penyidik untuk mengikuti perkembangan zaman dengan mengoptimalkan pemanfaatan teknologi. Tujuannya adalah untuk memberikan arti bagi penegakan hukum di Indonesia yakni memberikan keadilan, kemanfaatan, dan kepastian. Namun yang harus diperhatikan adalah mengutamakan nilai-nilai Pancasila dalam melakukan proses penyelidikan dan penyidikan. Nilai-nilai ketuhanan yang maha esa (religius), kemanusiaan, persatuan, kerakyatan dan keadilan merupakan nilai-nilai yang membangun keseimbangan (harmoni) dalam menegakkan hukum. Sehingga produk hukum dan pelaksanaannya memenuhi rasa keadilan masyarakat. Tulisan ini akan mengkaji tentang peran penyidik menurut hukum positif yang saat ini berlaku serta peran penyidik dalam mengimplementasikan  nilai-nilai Pancasila dengan diiringi optimalisasi pemanfaatan teknologi.Kata Kunci: Reaktualisasi,Penyidikan,Kepolisian,Nilai-nilai Pancasila,Teknologi

scholarly journals Rights and Powers in the European Union: Towards a Charter that is Fully Applicable to the Member States?

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
Aida TORRES PÉREZ
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
Eu Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Eu

Abstract This contribution will tackle a central question for the architecture of fundamental rights protection in the EU: can we envision a Charter that fully applies to the Member States, even beyond the limits of its scope of application? To improve our understanding of the boundaries of the Charter and the potential for further expansion, I will examine the legal avenues through which the CJEU has extended the scope of application of EU fundamental rights in fields of state powers. While the latent pull of citizenship towards a more expansive application of the Charter has not been fully realized, the principle of effective judicial protection (Article 19(1) TEU) has recently shown potential for protection under EU law beyond the boundaries of the Charter. As will be argued, effective judicial protection may well become a doorway for full application of the Charter to the Member States. While such an outcome might currently seem politically unsound, I contend that a progressive case-by-case expansion of the applicability of the Charter to the Member States would be welcome from the standpoint of a robust notion of the rule of law in the EU.

Russia and EU Countries: Partnership for Modernization

2013 ◽  
pp. 54-61
Author(s):  
T. Romanova ◽  
E. Pavlova
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
New Classification ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Normative Power ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The World ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Eu

The article examines how the normative power, which the EU puts forward as an ideological basis of its actions in the world, manifests itself in the national partnerships for modernization between Russia and EU member states. The authors demonstrate the influence of the EU’s normativity on its approach to modernization as well as the difference in the positions of its member countries. It is concluded that there is no unity in the EU’s approach to democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and the new classification of EU member states, which is based on their readiness to act in accordance with the Union’s concept of normative power, is offered.

scholarly journals The Rule of Law Framework in the European Union: Its Rationale, Origins, Role and International Ramifications

2021 ◽  
pp. 305-331
Author(s):  
Artur Nowak-Far
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
International Legal Order ◽  
High Level ◽  
The Eu

AbstractAt present, the European rule of law enforcement framework under Article 7 TEU (RLF) is vulnerable to unguaranteed, discretionary influences of the Member States. This vulnerability arises from its procedural format which requires high thresholds in decision-making with the effect that this procedure is prone to be terminated by the EU Member States likely to be scrutinized under it, if only they collude. Yet, the Framework may prove effective to correct serious breaches against human rights (in the context of ineffective rule of law standards). The European Commission is bound to pursue the RLF effectiveness for the sake of achieving relative uniformity of application of EU law (at large), and making the European Union a credible actor and co-creator of international legal order. The RLF is an important tool for the maintenance of relative stability of human rights and the rule of law in the EU despite natural divergence propensity resulting from the procedural autonomy of the EU Member States. By achieving this stability, the EU achieves significant political weight in international dialogue concerning human rights and the rule of law and preserves a high level of its global credibility in this context. Thus, RLF increases the EU’s effectiveness in promoting the European model of their identification and enforcement.

scholarly journals The Rule of Law and the Roll of the Dice. The Uncertain Future of Investor-State Arbitration in the EU

2021 ◽  
pp. 333-359
Author(s):  
Wojciech Sadowski
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Treaty Law ◽  
Energy Charter Treaty ◽  
Uncertain Future ◽  
The Eu

AbstractInvestment treaty law and EU law began to develop in the same era and share some important philosophical and axiological foundations. The pressure on the CEE countries to enter into numerous bilateral investment treaties in late 80s and early 90s, in the context of the EU accession aspirations of the former communist countries, was likely to result, eventually, in a conflict between EU law and investment treaty law. The conflict could have been managed in three different ways, yet the CJEU decided in Achmea to declare an undefined volume of intra-EU arbitrations to be incompatible with EU law. This important judgment, which delivered an outcome desired by the European Commission and a number of Member States, is based on questionable legal reasoning that creates high uncertainty in this area of law. The doubts include the scope of application of Achmea, which is now a highly debatable issue. The CJEU itself saw it necessary to limit the scope of Achmea by declaring in Opinion 1/17 (CETA) that the legal reasoning of Achmea did not apply to investment protection treaties with third countries. The Member States of the EU remain politically divided in their views as to whether Achmea applies to the Energy Charter Treaty. And while the problems with the rule of law and independence of the judiciary in certain Member States continue to grow, Achmea has left an important gap for which there is no substitute in the current architecture of the EU legal system.

scholarly journals Posner’s Folly: The End of Legal Pragmatism and Coercion’s Clarity

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 365-400
Author(s):  
Joseph D’Agostino
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Essential Elements ◽  
Public Confidence ◽  
Moral Legitimacy ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Positive Law ◽  
Diverse Society ◽  
The Concept Of Law ◽  
Legal Concepts ◽  
Legal Pragmatism

Abstract Highly influential legal scholar and judge Richard Posner, newly retired from the bench, believes that law is irrelevant to most of his judicial decisions as well as to most constitutional decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. His recent high-profile repudiation of the rule of law, made in statements for the general public, was consistent with what he and others have been saying to legal audiences for decades. Legal pragmatism has reached its end in abandoning all the restraints of law. Posner-endorsed “epistemological democracy” obscures a discretion that is much worse than the rule of law promoted by epistemological authoritarianism. I argue that a focus on conceptual essentialism and on the recognition of coercive intent as essential to the concept of law, both currently unpopular among legal theorists and many jurists, can clarify legal understandings and serve as starting points for the restoration of the rule of law. A much more precise, scientific approach to legal concepts is required in order to best ensure the rational and moral legitimacy of law and to combat eroding public confidence in political and legal institutions, especially in an increasingly diverse society. The rational regulation by some (lawmakers) of the real-world actions of others (ordinary citizens) requires that core or central instances of concepts have essential elements rather than be “democratic.” Although legal pragmatism has failed just as liberal theory generally has failed, the pragmatic value of different conceptual approaches is, in fact, the best measure of their worth. Without essentialism in concept formation and an emphasis on coercion, the abilities to understand and communicate effectively about the practical legal world are impaired. Non-essentialism grants too much unwarranted discretion to judges and other legal authorities, and thus undermines the rule of law. Non-essentialist or anti-essentialist conceptual approaches allow legal concepts to take on characteristics appropriate to religious and literary concepts, which leads to vague and self-contradictory legal concepts that incoherently and deceptively absorb disparate elements that are best kept independent in order to maximize law’s rationality and moral legitimacy. When made essentialist, the concept of political positive law shrinks, clarifies, and reveals its true features, including the physically-coercive nature of all laws and the valuable method of tracing the content of law by following its coercive intents and effects.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document