On Judicial Debate, Deliberation, and Legitimacy

Abstract

Abstract The judicial systems of France, the United States, and the European Union as represented by the Cour de cassation, Supreme Court, and the European Court of Justice, respectively, take rather different approaches to a series of fundamental debate and deliberation issues. First, who should be engaged in debates about judicial decision-making? Second, where should these debates be held and/or found? And, third, what kinds of debates should be had? By answering these questions differently, the three judicial systems produce very different models of democratic debate, deliberation, and legitimacy in the judicial context. This chapter examines how (and why) the French, American, and EU judicial systems each align their respective (and quite different) approaches to the issues of judicial transparency, accountability, and control, as well as judicial debate and judicial deliberation.