Bringing a Hammer to the Chess Board
Why Doctrinal-Conceptual Legal Thinking is Futile in Dealing with Autocratizing Regimes
Jakab, András
Author
aut
Text
xx#
2020
Verfassungsblog
2020-06-25
eng
In cases where constitutional law is slowly losing its normative force, sophisticated doctrinal-conceptual systems (Verfassungsdogmatik) may even become ridiculous and, to some degree, dishonest. While showing a very few examples of doctrinal absurdities in a judgment of a captured and subservient constitutional court can be meaningful (also in order to corroborate the claim about its captured nature), writing a thorough doctrinal analysis on such a judgment is a futile, frustrating and meaningless exercise. A thorough doctrinal analysis can even legitimize the theater of legalism by taking seriously words which are not worth to be taken seriously. Judicial decisions of captured courts and doctrinal writings of pro-autocracy academics in these countries can be viewed as merely performative acts (as opposed to reasons).
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Jakab, András
funded by the government
Authoritarian Populism
Autocratization
judicial independence
Verfassungsdogmatik
342
https://staging.verfassungsblog.de/bringing-a-hammer-to-the-chess-board/
Verfassungsblog
2366-7044
Max Steinbeis Verfassungsblog gGmbH
10.17176/20200626-003815-0
200625
10.17176/20200626-003815-0
Converted from MARCXML to MODS version 3.7 using MARC21slim2MODS3-7.xsl
(Revision 1.140 20200717)