BazEkon - The Main Library of the Cracow University of Economics

BazEkon home page

Main menu

Kobyliński Konrad (Uniwersytet Śląski)
The Polish Constitutional Court From an Attitudinal and Institutional Perspective Before and after the Constitutional Crisis of 2015-2016
Wroclaw Review of Law, Administration & Economics, 2016, vol. 6, nr 2, s. 94-107, bibliogr. 31 poz.
Konstytucja, Praworządność, Trybunał Konstytucyjny
Constitution, Rule of law, Constitutional Court
The term "judicial behaviour" refers to what judges do as judges. The scholarship on higher courts has depicted three ideal types of judicial behaviour: legal, attitudinal, and strategic. Most judges see their own behaviour within the framework of the legal model. Other models are successors of legal realism; the theory that suggests judicial decision making is essentially a matter of politics. In the institutional approach scholars examine judicial decisions as part of a political regime. The Polish Constitutional Court (Trybunał Konstytucyjny, TK) was created during the socialist period and still plays a crucial role in the Polish legal and political system. The paper will try to examine the relationship between the changes in the Polish political environment after the transformation and the legal policy imposed by the TK, and how the former impacted the content of the TK's decisions. The paper will focus, especially, on the disagreement within the TK and the impact of the 2015-2016 constitutional crisis in Poland.(original abstract)
Full text
  1. Baum L., Judges and their Audiences. A perspective on Judicial Behaviour (Princeton University Press 2006).
  2. Baum L., The Puzzle of Judicial Behaviour (Michigan University Press 2005).
  3. Bybee K.J., All Judges Are Political, Except When They Are Not (Stanford University Press 2010).
  4. Carter L.H., Burke T.F., Reason in Law (New York: Pearson Longman 2007).
  5. Gallo F., Intervento al seminario di studi "L'opinione dissenziente", Conference held at the Italian Constitutional Court on the 22nd of June 2009 (accessed March 2016).
  6. Geyh C.G., 'Can Rule of Law Survive Judicial Politics?' (2012) 97 "Cornell Law Review".
  7. . Gibson J. L., 'Judges Role Orientations, Attitudes, and Decisions: An interactive Model' (1978) 72 "American Political Science Review" 3.
  8. Gillman H., Clayton C.W., 'Beyond Judicial Attitudes: Institutional Approaches to Supreme Court Decision- Making' in C.W. Clayton, H. Gillman Holmes OW, 'The Path of the Law' (1987) 10 "Harvard Law Review" 457.
  9. Leiter B., 'Legal Formalism and Legal Realism: What Is the Issue?' (2010) 16 "Legal Theory".
  10. MacCormick N., Rhetoric and the Rule of Law (Oxford University Press 2005).
  11. Mańko R., 'Law, Politics and the Economy in Poland's Post-Socialist Transformation: Preliminary Notes Towards an Investigation' in B. Fekete and F. Gárdos-Orosz (eds), 25 Years After Transition in Central and Eastern Europe: Understanding the Transition from an Internal Perspective (Peter Lang 2017).
  12. Mańko R., '"War of Courts" as a Clash of Legal Cultures: Rethinking the Conflict between the Polish Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court Over "Interpretive Judgments" in M. Hein, Antonia Geisler and Siri Hummel (eds), Law, Politics, and the Constitution: New Perspectives from Legal and Political Theory (Peter Lang 2014).
  13. Mańko R., Weeds in the Gardens of Justice? The Survival of Hyperpositivism in Polish Legal Culture as a Symptom/Sinthome (2013) 7.2 Pólemos 207.
  14. Maveety N., 'The Study of Judicial Behaviour and the Discipline of Political Science' in N. Maveety (ed) The Pioneers of Judicial Behaviour (Michigan University Press 2003).
  15. Matczak M., 'Poland's Constitutional Court under PiS control descends into legal chaos' (accessed March 2017).
  16. Morawski L., 'Precedens a wykładnia' [Precedent and Interpretation] (1996) 10 Państwo i Prawo.
  17. Morawski L., 'Zasada trójpodziału władzy. Trybunał Konstytucyjny i aktywizm sędziowski' (2009) 4/93 Przegląd Sejmowy.
  18. O'Brien D.M., Institutional Norms and Supreme Court Opinions: On Reconsidering the Rise of Individual Opinions in C.W. Clayton, H. Gillman (ed), Supreme Court Decision Making. New Institutionalist Approaches (University of Chicago Press 1999).
  19. Posner R., 'The Decline of Law as an Autonomous Discipline: 1962 - 1987' (1987) 100 Harvard Law Review.
  20. Pritchett H.C., 'The Development of Judicial Research' in JB Grossman, J Tanenhaus (ed) Frontiers of Judicial Research (Wiley 1969).
  21. Raffaeli R., Dissenting opinions in the Supreme Courts of the Member States, European Parliament Policy Department C Study, PE 462.470 (European Parliament 2012).
  22. Ross L., Nisbett R., The Person and Situation: Perspectives of Social Psychology (McGraw-Hill New York 1991).
  23. Schubert G., Judicial Behaviour: A reader in Theory and Research (Rand McNally & Company Chicago 1964).
  24. Segal J.A., Spaeth HJ, The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model (Cambridge University Press 1993).
  25. Sulikowski A., 'Government of Judges and Neoliberal Ideology' in Rafał Mańko, Cosmin Cercel and Adam Sulikowski (eds), Law and Critique in Central Europe: Questioning the Past, Resisting the Present (Counterpress 2016).
  26. Sulikowski A., 'Między tekstem, rozumem i polityką. Modernistyczne fundamenty wykładni konstytucji i ich praktyczne implikacje' in Przemysław Kaczmarek (ed), Lokalny a uniwersalny charakter interpretacji prawniczej (Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego 2009).
  27. Sulikowski A., 'Trybunał Konstytucyjny a polityczność. O konsekwencjach upadku pewnego mitu' [Constitutional Court and the Political: On the Consequences of Dispelling a Certain Myth] (2016) 4 Państwo i Prawo.
  28. Tushnet M., The United States: Eclecticism in the Service of Pragmatism, in J Goldsworthy (ed) Constitutional Interpretation (Oxford University Press 2006).
  29. Venkateswara B. Rao, Crisis in Indian Judiciary (Michigan University Press 2001).
  30. Waldron J., Law and Disagreement (Oxford University Press 1999).
  31. Walker T.G., Epstein L., Dixon W.J., 'On the Mysterious Demise of Consensual Norms in the United States Supreme Court' (1988) 50 Journal Of Politics.
Cited by
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on Pinterest Share on LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu