Maximalism and minimalism in judicial decision-making: How can courts strengthen or weaken the unity of a legal system?

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11220%2F21%3A10434847" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11220/21:10434847 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

—

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

—

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Maximalism and minimalism in judicial decision-making: How can courts strengthen or weaken the unity of a legal system?

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

The notions of minimalism and maximalism in judicial decision-making are linked to the methods of substantiating court decisions, which, on the one hand, may comprise brief reasoning and be limited to the given case only or, on the other hand, set out general principles that will also have a bearing on other similar cases; the reasons given may also be very detailed. This paper aims primarily not to describe the phenomena of minimalism and maximalism, but rather to evaluate, on a theoretical basis, those situations where minimalism or maximalism in judicial decision-making strengthens or, to the contrary, weakens the unity of the legal system. In the continental legal culture, courts were traditionally not asked to promote the coherence and unity of the legal system. Their task was rather to hear and decide individual cases. However, the role-especially of supreme courts-has been evolving and I therefore consider it necessary to focus on the aspects of width and depth of judicial decisions. The chapter concludes by suggesting that a judge should be aware of the benefits and drawbacks of minimalist and maximalist decisions when formulating the reasons for his or her ruling. Consequently, I do not consider that purely minimalist or purely maximalist decisions should be deemed a universally preferable manner of decision-making. Many courts have at their disposal certain mechanisms enabling them to adopt broader conclusions (e.g. rendering a pilot ruling; adopting an opinion to unify case law, etc.). A statement of reasons which pertains exclusively to the case at hand is therefore suitable when the courts deal with usual cases, while a maximalist ruling should be rendered only exceptionally, where this is justified by the circumstances (a clear opinion of the court on the manner how the given issue should be resolved in the future; a consensus in society regarding a certain question and the related absence of a controversial political debate on this issue).

Název v anglickém jazyce

Maximalism and minimalism in judicial decision-making: How can courts strengthen or weaken the unity of a legal system?

Popis výsledku anglicky

The notions of minimalism and maximalism in judicial decision-making are linked to the methods of substantiating court decisions, which, on the one hand, may comprise brief reasoning and be limited to the given case only or, on the other hand, set out general principles that will also have a bearing on other similar cases; the reasons given may also be very detailed. This paper aims primarily not to describe the phenomena of minimalism and maximalism, but rather to evaluate, on a theoretical basis, those situations where minimalism or maximalism in judicial decision-making strengthens or, to the contrary, weakens the unity of the legal system. In the continental legal culture, courts were traditionally not asked to promote the coherence and unity of the legal system. Their task was rather to hear and decide individual cases. However, the role-especially of supreme courts-has been evolving and I therefore consider it necessary to focus on the aspects of width and depth of judicial decisions. The chapter concludes by suggesting that a judge should be aware of the benefits and drawbacks of minimalist and maximalist decisions when formulating the reasons for his or her ruling. Consequently, I do not consider that purely minimalist or purely maximalist decisions should be deemed a universally preferable manner of decision-making. Many courts have at their disposal certain mechanisms enabling them to adopt broader conclusions (e.g. rendering a pilot ruling; adopting an opinion to unify case law, etc.). A statement of reasons which pertains exclusively to the case at hand is therefore suitable when the courts deal with usual cases, while a maximalist ruling should be rendered only exceptionally, where this is justified by the circumstances (a clear opinion of the court on the manner how the given issue should be resolved in the future; a consensus in society regarding a certain question and the related absence of a controversial political debate on this issue).

Druh

D - Stať ve sborníku

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

50501 - Law

Projekt

<a href="/cs/project/GA19-10723S" target="_blank" >GA19-10723S: Co současné právo sjednocuje a co jej fragmentarizuje z pohledu právní teorie a soudní praxe?</a><br>

Návaznosti

P - Projekt vyzkumu a vyvoje financovany z verejnych zdroju (s odkazem do CEP)

Rok uplatnění

2021

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název statě ve sborníku

Judicial Law-Making and Judicial Interpretation in Central European Countries: How Can Courts Strengthen or Weaken the Unity of Law?

ISBN

978-80-7676-183-4

ISSN

—

e-ISSN

—

Počet stran výsledku

17

Strana od-do

119-135

Název nakladatele

Wolters Kluwer

Místo vydání

Prague, Warsaw, Bratislava, Budapest

Místo konání akce

Luzern

Datum konání akce

9. 7. 2019

Typ akce podle státní příslušnosti

WRD - Celosvětová akce

Kód UT WoS článku

—