PANEL SESSIONS V WEDNESDAY JUNE 27 2018 9.00 AM – 10.30 AM

Room: CYTT 3.10

  • INQUIRING OF JUDICIAL DECISION MAKING
    This panel brings together various scholars of law and politics from Europe and United-States whose research in various fields (constitutional law, discrimination law and theory of law). They look at the contemporary outcomes of mechanisms of judicial decision making. As opposed to classical literature on legal reasoning, which is much concerned with legal interpretation, this panel aims to put forward an overview about novel approaches to judicial decision making process. Véronique Champeil-Desplats will expose the theory of legal constraints which highlights the importance of “legal factors“ in this process; through an analysis of discrimination against multiracial people (racially-mixed), Tanya K. Hernandez will explore the legal reasoning in the US Supreme Court ; finally, in their three contributions, Eleonora Botini, Toon Monen, and Michael Koskas will focus on the role of the micro-practices that takes place within the Supremes Courts (Belgium, France, Italy…).
  • How Judges Decides? The Hypothesis of Legal Constraints
    A theory of legal constraints start with a realistic conception of the interpretation, according to which the legal actors (ie. authorities authorized to produce legal rules) are free to choose between several possible meanings of the texts which they have to apply. Nevertheless, the legal actors do not decide in a completely arbitrary way. From the observation of their decisions, appear coherences. Numerous factors can explain it: sociological, political, psychological, conventional factors… The theory of the legal constraints suggests bringing to light, among all these factors, the existence of some which are specifically legal, that is emerging from the configuration of the legal systems such as the legal actors represent it themselves. This representation is connected to the conception that the actors have of their own power and of the power that other actors have on them, in their conception of the modalities of the legal argumentation and the functioning of the legal system.
  • Judges and the Judging of Mixed-Race Racial Identity Discrimination Claims
    A growing number of commentators view discrimination against multiracial (racially-mixed) people as a distinctive challenge to racial equality. This perspective is based on the belief that multiracial-identified persons experience racial discrimination in a manner that judges steeped in historic black-white notions of racism cannot comprehend. I dispute that premise and deconstruct its Personal Identity Equality approach to anti-discrimination law and demonstrates its ill effects reflected in Supreme Court affirmative action litigation.
  • Renewing a Court: Consequences for Judicial Decision Making and Identity
    Over the course of the next five years, no less than 9 out of 12 judges on the Belgian Constitutional Court will have to be replaced because of mandatory retirement. As it stands, the law provides that half of the judges are former politicians, who, theoretically, need not even be lawyers. Of the other half, some are judges, some academics. So, many of the appointees will be new to the job of judging altogether. A renewal of this magnitude gives cause for deeper questions of court identity. How will it impact on the institutional memory of the Court and its decision making protocols? The Belgian Court is relatively young; a new generation of judges may bring along its own perspectives on the responsibilities and idiosyncrasies of constitutional adjudication. As only one hypothesis, it seems that the law clerks, who are highly-specialised career staff, will have a particular role in socializing the new judges in their role, thereby undoubtedly influencing the direction of the Court.
    • The judicial decision making protocol: the case of the French Conseil constitutionnel
      This contribution explores the professional and social relationships that takes place within the Supremes Courts. It proposes to take the French Conseil constitutionnel as an example. Classical literature on legal reasoning, especially in France, tries to explain decisions by referring to rational choice theory (economic analysis of law for instance). In contrast, I focus on the role played by all micro-practices such as role of clerks, documents attached to the decisions, old reports of deliberation, theories, and institutional procedures etc. What is the impact of such practices on the process of judicial decision making? According to this contribution, they influence much more than logical reasoning or external constraints such as political pressure.