Informace o publikaci
Discourse, Power, and Proportionality: A Critical Analysis of Judicial Reasoning in Europe
| Autoři | |
|---|---|
| Rok publikování | 2025 |
| Druh | Další prezentace na konferencích |
| Fakulta / Pracoviště MU | |
| Citace | |
| Popis | This paper critically examines the principle of proportionality, a foundational doctrine in human rights protection and constitutional law that ensures state interventions remain balanced and do not disproportionately infringe on individual freedoms. Proportionality has become the dominant method for courts worldwide, particularly in adjudicating fundamental rights. However, while it is widely utilized, there is limited agreement on its ideological neutrality or its consistent application across different legal cultures. This study focuses on the application and interpretation of proportionality in Central and Eastern European legal systems, particularly the Visegrád Group (V4) countries: the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, and Hungary, comparing them with the decisionmaking processes of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). This examination is set within the broader “culture of justification,” where the legitimacy of judicial decisions is scrutinized based on the transparency and reasoning provided. Research questions investigate the historical evolution of proportionality and its ideological foundations, asking whether it serves as a neutral tool or introduces ideological biases through judicial interpretation. The study also questions if proportionality manifests universally or if it varies according to cultural and socio-political contexts. Specifically, it seeks to determine whether different material conditions have led to distinct interpretations or alternatives to proportionality in various regions. Additional inquiries assess whether proportionality supports certain group or class interests over others, challenging its perceived neutrality. This multi-layered inquiry includes analyzing the language used in the development and application of proportionality, scrutinizing whether it aligns with its theoretical purposes – such as promoting protection, structuring arguments, and enhancing transparency – or diverges in practical contexts. The methodology integrates critical historiography and critical discourse analysis, emphasizing conceptual transformations, institutional changes, and shifts in social practices over time. By analyzing discourse discontinuities and transitions, the study reveals how legal language and reasoning reflect, reinforce, or challenge underlying power structures and ideologies. Through a detailed review of ECJ case law and national court practices, the paper assesses whether proportionality, in practice, meets its theoretical goals and how it navigates ideological influences within different judicial environments. This study ultimately argues that proportionality, while theoretically positioned as a neutral tool, is influenced by contextual factors and may favor particular interests depending on its application. The findings aim to contribute to a deeper understanding of proportionality’s role within judicial systems and the implications of its ideological underpinnings, offering critical insights for future discourse on the limits and potentials of this legal doctrine. |