THE PROFILE OF THE JUDGE IN THE EUROPEAN TRADITION

Abstract

I. The is an archetypal figure of European history. Most of great religions draw out a profile of a sitting in judgement on men's actions when they enter realm of He balances good and evil actions against one another and decides upon punishment or reward. The is resort everything is oriented by. It is that way in ancient Babylon and also in ancient Egypt and in ancient Jewry--but not in Greece. In apostolic Creed, we Christians speak about Jesus Christ, at end of time sitting in judgment as judge of worlds on the living and dead. Our collective historic consciousness saves ideal profiles of this judge: He is seated enhanced, in an upright posture; his symbols are a pair of scales and punishing sword. He sees everything and decides fair. His sentence is irrevocable. He is last resort. It seems that imagination of this profile of a is a universal of human existence. In conflicts as they occur inevitably (only in utopias, societies without conflicts are created), we seek an instance, a person or an institution provided with ultimate authority, standing above parties and being able to settle dispute by wisdom and legal studies. This suggests a continuous tradition from Osiris, upon dead, or from Jesus Christ, judge of worlds, to judges of highest European Courts in Luxembourg or Strasbourg, to international judges in Den Hague or to constitutional judges of European states. They are also seated enhanced, they wear ceremonial, neutralizing robes, they decide most sovereign and finally, at least on this Earth. However, on closer inspection, proposition of a super-transcending continuousness of cannot be maintained. For historians, history is more a kaleidoscope of changing pictures, among which there are related elements but with modifying constellations. Still, there are relicts of archaic civilizations, without judges but with a community acting subsequent to time-consuming palaver and by ritual acts (Wesel 2001:29ff). Still, there are examples of so-called segmental, settled societies without a There, law of vendetta is applied; a kind of arbitration exists as well as a complex process of making compromises. Some of it seems to recur in non-statal or acephale judicial networks of globalization. Without a state or an organized community there is no judge. In historic order of events, societies known to us gradually move towards a formation of structures. This means that agrarian societies consider it to be more useful to transfer disputes away from clan through to public concerns, thus to neutralize them and to make them controllable. Out of family's protective cover, individual slowly emerges. Vis-a-vis, there is a being independent of clans, be it a chief or a king, now taking over function of regulating for major ethnic associations. Going an extra mile to early urban advanced civilization we discover a developed judiciary immediately. The ruler of town or a pharaoh, a high council or a priest provided with judicial rights is ruler of courts. This is relevant in ancient Mesopotamia, in Egypt and ancient Israel. However, I am not going to tell a history of judiciary and profile of judges of ancient Babylon, Egypt, Greece and Rome up to European states of present. That would not only exhaust my expertise but also your patience. With these introductory remarks I intended to foreshadow genesis of an archetype of judge, developed by all these civilizations, if certain conditions are fulfilled. As such conditions have to be named: The formation of organisations distanced enough from clans and being able to be called state. There needs to be a particular division of functions, formation of a type of human being, dedicating himself to public affairs. …