This book compares how and why the European Court of Justice, the French Cour de cassation and the United States Supreme Court offer different approaches for generating judicial accountability and control, judicial debate and deliberation, and ultimately judicial legitimacy.
`Shattering prevailing stereotypes, this book revolutionizes the study of comparative law. It will serve as a basic reference point for future scholarship.
Bruce Ackerman, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science, Yale University
`Judicial Deliberations is an ambitious, important, and innovative book, which adds greatly to our understanding of particular legal systems, of the ways in which differing configurations of discourse and institutional practice promote core rule-of-law values, and of comparative methodology itself. Beautifully written and wide-ranging in scope, it is likely to become a classic in the field.'
Professor Amalia Kessler, Stanford Law School
`Finally, must trials be opened up to discussions of non-legal factors and how far should one proceed down this path? In this event, a judge returns to a position of neutral arbiter, of a public debate discussion leader, but then the nature of trials will change. They then become a forum. Are we ready to accept this? Mitchel Lasser's book exploring the American, French and European traditions invites us to seek lines of progression that enrich these
experiences while respecting the identities of each of these judicial cultures.'
Guy Canivet, Justice of the French Constitutional Council and former President of the French Cour de cassation
`[I]t seems very much in place to congratulate ProfessorLasser on his excellent contribution to the discussion on judicial reasoning and legitimacy. His book constitutes a very important step for comparative analysis of judicial style at the national as well as at the supranational level.'
Lech Garlicki, Judge of the European Court of Justice
`Because he is bilingual, Lasser was able to analyse the two legal systems from the inside out. He shows how the American and French models each create their own idiosyncratic legitimacy. His analysis provides a healthy antidote to both the dominance of American legal thought and the tendency in Brussels and Strasbourg towards uniformisation.'
Professor Nick Huls, Universities of Leiden and Rotterdam
`Reading Professor Lasser's book, Judicial Deliberations is eye-opening. He elegantly presents the way in which different courts in different jurisdictions entertain different types of legal discourses, exposing how those discourses, different as they are, contribute, or indeed do not contribute, to a more transparent and more pluralistic legal culture. Lasser's realist approach is a refreshing disenchantment of judicial
deliberations. The appeal of the book for European post-communist legal scholars possibly has to do with disappointment with the legal formalism and authoritarianism of socialist law, which are the elements of the traditional legal
approach facing increasing difficulties responding to the emerging social needs associated with the market economy and European integration. Yet, the rabbit hole is much deeper then one usually anticipates.'
Professor Sinisa Rodin, University of Zagreb
PART I: The Three Courts - Raw Analysis
2: The French Bifurcation
3: The American Unification
4: The European Union: Discursive Bifurcation Revisited
PART II: Bifurcation
5: Similarity and Difference
6: France: How is the discursive bifurcation maintained?
7: The ECJ: The French bifurcation reworked
PART III: Comparison
8: The Sliding Scales
9: Apples and Oranges
10: On Judicial Transparency, Control, and Accountability
11: On Judicial Debate, Deliberation, and Legitimacy
12: Concluding Postscript
Series: Oxford Studies in European Law
Number Of Pages: 400
Published: 1st November 2004
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Country of Publication: GB
Dimensions (cm): 24.2 x 16.6
Weight (kg): 0.74