To Örebro University

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.