Till Örebro universitet

Automation of the judicial process has been the subject of debate among researchers and policymakers for some time. Partial automation of the judicial process always involves interaction between humans (judges, jurors, and other parties involved in court proceedings) and machines (software programs). These human-machine collaborations can be considered "anthrobotic systems" and we argue they should be designed with an understanding of the specific groups they are intended to serve. This article proposes a philosophical-conceptual framework that could contribute to a socially and ethically sound automation of court procedures. The automation of court procedures should be to a certain extent optimized for the legal tradition or group ethos in which it is developed and implemented. The concept of esprit de corps can be a useful tool for introducing more pluralism in the design of anthrobotic systems.

Disagreement among judges has always existed, even though not all courts have been allowed to reveal it. Disagreements between the members of a judicial panel regarding the resolution of a case is referred to as dissent. Such disagreements may be reflected in one or more separate opinions written by the members who remain in the minority with their views. This chapter offers a comparative analysis of the phenomenon of judicial dissent, outlines the existing literature, and highlights areas and questions that require further research. To this end, the chapter first offers a definition of the terminology and then addresses the primary methodological challenges. Subsequently, it examines the main research questions that have captivated scholars studying judicial dissent. In legal research, separate opinions can be in and of themselves the object of research aiming to analyse court practice, and for researchers who study any legal problem, they may serve as a useful source of arguments and possible solutions. The primary research question regarding the practice of judicial dissent is the extent to which judges are influenced by their own political views when making decisions. Finally, the chapter takes a comparative approach, presenting several studies conducted in relation to various jurisdictions, to shed light on dissent and other separate opinions.

Today all five Nordic countries are counted among the legal systems that have a decentralized model of judicial review. All Nordic courts have the power of judicial review and may directly apply and enforce their national constitution. They are, however, also traditionally considered to have a model of weak judicial review, as judges are reluctant to use this power and give instead considerable deference to the legislature. The Nordic Supreme Courts have, however, not been an exception from the global trend of rising judicial power. They have often taken a firmer stand on constitutional issues in the last few decades, determining the fundamental questions of politics. In some cases, their decisions even provoked accusations of excessive judicial activism. This chapter, without being able to rely on the JUDICON dataset, will discuss the relationship between judicial and legislative power in the Nordic countries based on doctrinal and, in a smaller part, empirical research carried out in the last three decades.

In September 2022, a ministerial decree caused a stir in Hungary. The decree in question was intended to require doctors to have the woman listen to the vital signs of the foetus (or embryo) before signing the medical records required to apply for the termination of the pregnancy. The influence of the Dobbs ruling, published by the US Supreme Court two months earlier, comes inevitably to mind. This short note offers a context to and a reflection on this development in Hungary.

Nel settembre 2022, un decreto ministeriale ha suscitato scalpore in Ungheria. Tale decreto impone ai medici di far ascoltare i segni vitali del feto (o embrione) alla donna incinta prima di firmare la cartella clinica necessaria per richiedere l’interruzione della gravidanza. Viene spontaneo pensare ad un’associazione con la sentenza Dobbs, pubblicata dalla Corte suprema statunitense due mesi prima. Questa breve nota offre un contesto ed una riflessione su tali sviluppi in Ungheria.

Constitutional reasoning has been a flourishing field of research in comparative constitutional law in the past decade. This essay reviews two books that have made a significant contribution to the field. The success of these books is also shown by the fact that both were reprinted in paperback last year. The first book, as the author András Jakab declares, “provides a theory for constitutional lawyers about fundamental questions of European constitutional law” (at 1). At the same time, it serves as a conceptual foundation for the second book, which is an edited collection on comparative constitutional reasoning, and the final product of a five-year research project, involving twenty-five scholars from four continents who authored the various contributions, each examining one court’s style of constitutional reasoning. András Jakab is among the leaders of this research project (together with Arthur Dyevre and Giulio Itzcovich) and the editors of the second book. The essay will present the two books in this order.