Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Dissenting opinions in constitutional courts
Örebro University, School of Law, Psychology and Social Work.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3141-4954
2013 (English)In: German Law Journal, ISSN 2071-8322, E-ISSN 2071-8322, Vol. 14, no 8, 1345-1371 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Although long considered alien to the civil law tradition, the publication of separate dissenting or concurring opinions is now permitted by the majority of European constitutional courts, the only exceptions being the Austrian, Belgian, French, Italian, and Luxembourgish constitutional courts. The decades-long history of dissenting opinions in the practice of several European constitutional courts calls for an analysis.  While there is an extensive literature in the United States regarding the use of dissenting opinions, comprehensive empirical research is still absent in Europe.  American scholars have conducted research from several different points of view. Legal scholars have dealt primarily with the relationship between dissenting opinions and the doctrine of binding precedent, and have tried to solve the problem of the precedential value of plurality decisions, e.g. decisions lacking a reasoning shared by the majority of the judges.  Political scientists, for their part, have studied the policy-making role of judges and strategic opinion-writing.  Scholars of law and economics have analyzed the costs and benefits of writing separately.  Even judges themselves have often expressed their own thoughts in essays or conference speeches on the matter.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2013. Vol. 14, no 8, 1345-1371 p.
Keyword [en]
Comparative law. Dissenting opinions, Judicial opinions, Judicial independence, Separate opinions
National Category
Law (excluding Law and Society)
Research subject
Law; Legal Science; Constitutional Law
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-32286OAI: oai:DiVA.org:oru-32286DiVA: diva2:662804
Note

Special Issue of the German Law Journal on 'Constitutional Reasoning'

The article was commented by Prof. Hjalte Rasmussen and Louise Nan Rasmussen in the same issue: http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=11&artID=1558

Available from: 2013-11-08 Created: 2013-11-08 Last updated: 2017-12-06Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

Kelemen-Dissenting Opinions(655 kB)485 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 655 kBChecksum SHA-512
811970c146f3255210713c162844ea5528fa478f90b367821e39393009e7132fbc8b9ca969db468c261c6e9297e0d910fb7f52c79098aa4f251ecec13e472599
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

AbstractPDF

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Kelemen, Katalin
By organisation
School of Law, Psychology and Social Work
In the same journal
German Law Journal
Law (excluding Law and Society)

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 485 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 476 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf