Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

General Principles of Law and Transnational Judicial Communication

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover General Principles of Law - The Role of the Judiciary

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 46))

  • 1798 Accesses

Abstract

In the globalised legal context, the national courts in Western legal systems increasingly interact with each other as well as with courts at the regional and international levels. Judges exchange views and experiences in networks and through visits and conferences and they consult international, European and foreign legal materials when deciding domestic cases. Which role do general principles of law play in this developing transnational judicial communication? This chapter investigates this question on the basis of a comparative and socio-legal analysis of five legal systems (Canada, United States, United Kingdom, France, Netherlands), drawing information from constitutional theory and from interviews with judges in the highest courts of the selected systems. The analysis reveals that the use of foreign legal sources by the examined courts has become a common practice in the daily business of judging cases. The examples given by the interviewed judges provide illustrations of the specific practices of each court, highlighting a relatively high number of cases in which general principles of law played a role. The legal-theoretical analysis clarifies that the added value of the developed practices of the courts is nuanced by the legal factors of authority of legal sources, legal tradition and the particularities of national legal systems. Moreover, contextual factors related to individual judicial approaches and concerns of effective and efficient judicial decision-making influence the reference that is made to comparative law, including foreign general principles of law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    From a legal perspective, “globalisation” can be defined as the trend toward world domination of specific regimes; see Glenn (2007), p. 49. The emergence of transnational connections between courts has been referred to under many different names. In Muller and Richards (2010), the term “judicial internationalisation” is used to capture the increased exchange of legal ideas and experiences between judges in different legal systems, a trend also referred to as “‘transjudicialism’, judicial dialogue, judicial cosmopolitanism, judicial globalisation, the migration of legal ideas, legal transplants”; see the Introduction by the editors, at 4.

  2. 2.

    In this chapter, “foreign law” is used as a general term to refer to legal sources which originated outside of a specific national legal system. In this sense, this qualification also applies to sources which have acquired the status of national law but originate at the international or supranational level, such as implemented treaty provisions.

  3. 3.

    See Mak (2013).

  4. 4.

    Alpa (1994), p. 2. See further below, Sect. 2.

  5. 5.

    Ibid., p. 5.

  6. 6.

    Hol (2012), p. 2.

  7. 7.

    For more information and an explanation of the comparative and empirical research methodology, see Mak (2013), Chap. 3.

  8. 8.

    Alpa (1994), pp. 5–6, citing Stein and Shand (1984); and the work of Karl Larenz.

  9. 9.

    Guardian News and Media Ltd and others, Re HM Treasury v. Ahmed and others, 1 UKSC 2 WLR 325 (2010), para. 53.

  10. 10.

    Ibid., paras. 54–57. The judgment also contains a careful analysis of relevant ECtHR case law concerning Articles 8 and 10 of the ECHR; see ibid., paras. 22–52.

  11. 11.

    The Commission on European contract law, chaired by the Professor Ole Lando, was established in 1982 to explore the possibilities of developing a European code of contract law. The Commission published the PECL in three parts. See Lando et al. (2000–2003).

  12. 12.

    See http://www.bailii.org (search term “Principles of European contract law”).

  13. 13.

    Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993, OJ L 095, 21 April 1993, which was interpreted in Director General of Fair Trading v. First National Bank, 52 UKHL 2 All ER (Comm.) 1000 (2001), paras. 36–37 and 45.

  14. 14.

    Chartbrook Ltd v. Persimmon Homes Ltd and others, 38 UKHL 4 All ER 677 (2009), para. 39.

  15. 15.

    Preambles to the European Community Treaty and the Treaty on European Union.

  16. 16.

    Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1 SCR 3 (2002). See also LeBel and Gonsalves (2006), pp. 13–14.

  17. 17.

    1 SCR 3 (2002), paras. 59–60.

  18. 18.

    Ibid., para. 65.

  19. 19.

    Ibid., para. 75.

  20. 20.

    Ibid., paras. 76–77 and 87. See Secretary of State for the Home Department v. Rehman, 47 UKHL 3 WLR 877 (2001).

  21. 21.

    Ibid., para. 131.

  22. 22.

    See in this respect also Mugesera v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Integration), 2 SCR 100 (2005), discussed by LeBel and Gonsalves (2006), pp. 12–13.

  23. 23.

    United States v. Burns, 1 SCR 283 (2001), paras. 143–44.

  24. 24.

    Kindler v. Canada (Minister of Justice), 2 SCR 779 (1991); Reference re Ng Extradition (Canada), 2 SCR 858 (1991).

  25. 25.

    1 SCR 283 (2001), paras. 127–128.

  26. 26.

    Ibid., paras. 53, 67, 112–16, 119 and 137.

  27. 27.

    Ibid., para. 144.

  28. 28.

    Negusie v. Holder, 555 US 511 (2009).

  29. 29.

    Ibid., para. II-B.

  30. 30.

    Ibid.

  31. 31.

    Ibid.

  32. 32.

    Reed v Reed, 404 US 71 (1971).

  33. 33.

    Roper v Simmons, 543 US 551 (2005).

  34. 34.

    Ibid., opinion of the Court, para. 24.

  35. 35.

    Ibid., dissenting opinion of Justice Scalia, para. 2.

  36. 36.

    Scalia (1997).

  37. 37.

    Conseil constitutionnel, decision no. 74-54 (Loi relative à l’interruption volontaire de la grossesse), 15 January 1975, Recueil 19.

  38. 38.

    Steinmetz (2009). See also Dutheillet de Lamothe (2005), p. 550.

  39. 39.

    Conseil constitutionnel, decision no. 2010-613 (Loi interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l’espace public), 7 October 2010, available at: http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/root/bank/download/2010-613DC-doc.pdf.

  40. 40.

    Conseil constitutionnel, decision no. 2001-446, 27 June 2001, Recueil 74; Dutheillet de Lamothe (2005), p. 553.

  41. 41.

    Conseil constitutionnel, decision no. 83-165, 20 January 1984, Recueil 30; Dutheillet de Lamothe (2005), p. 554.

  42. 42.

    Conseil constitutionnel, decision no. 2003-489, 29 December 2003, Recueil 480; Dutheillet de Lamothe (2005), p. 554.

  43. 43.

    See in this regard also Barak (2006), pp. 197–204.

  44. 44.

    Institut de Droit Comparé Edouard Lambert, L’étendue de l’autorité de la chose jugée en droit comparé, available at: http://www.courdecassation.fr/IMG/File/Plen-06-07-07-0410672-rapport-definitif-anonymise-annexe-2.pdf; cited by Ferrand (2012), who was one of the researchers who conducted this comparative study.

  45. 45.

    Ferrand (2012), p. 355.

  46. 46.

    Errera (2004), p. 156.

  47. 47.

    Ibid., pp. 157–158.

  48. 48.

    Salduz plea, HR 30 June 2009, NJ 2009, paras. 349, 350 and 351.

  49. 49.

    Salduz v. Turkey (App. no. 36391/02), ECtHR, judgment of 27 November 2008. The European Court clarified this judgment in Panovits v. Cyprus (App. no. 4268/04), ECtHR, judgment of 11 December 2008.

  50. 50.

    Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State, Jezus redt, LJN BN1135, 14 July 2010.

  51. 51.

    Vergos v. Greece (App. no. 65501/01), ECtHR, judgment of 24 September 2004.

  52. 52.

    Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State,  LJN BN1135, 14 July 2010, para. 2.12.4.

  53. 53.

    See, e.g., Hoge Raad, LJN BN0526, 12 October 2010 (opinion of Advocate-General Jörg), para. 90, citing German, French, Swiss and US legal sources which define the scope of the right of non-disclosure.

  54. 54.

    See, e.g., Hoge Raad, LJN BO4475, 4 January 2011 (opinion of Advocate-General Silvis), para. 10, citing German doctrine and the case law of the Bundesgerichtshof as sources which confirm the case law of the Hoge Raad.

  55. 55.

    See above, Sect. 2.1.

  56. 56.

    See http://www.rechtspraak.nl (search term “Principles of European contract law”).

  57. 57.

    Hoge Raad, LJN BJ8724, 13 November 2009 (opinion of Advocate-General Huydecoper), para. 20.

  58. 58.

    Ibid., note 18 (my translation).

  59. 59.

    Based on this provision, the Hoge Raad has the possibility to dismiss appeals with a shortened reasoning if it considers that there are no grounds for cassation and the case does not raise any legal questions which should be answered in the interest of legal uniformity or the development of the law.

  60. 60.

    See Jackson (2009).

  61. 61.

    See also Breyer, “The Supreme Court and the New International Law” (American Society of International Law, Washington, DC, 4 April 2003).

  62. 62.

    Adams (2012), p. 534. See also Schauer (2008), p. 1931.

  63. 63.

    Schauer (2012). See also Mattei (1988), MacCormick and Summers (1997).

  64. 64.

    See, e.g., “Judge John Roberts Confirmation Hearings”, available at: http://theusconstitution.org.

  65. 65.

    See also LeBel and Gonsalves (2006), p. 20.

  66. 66.

    R v. Morgentaler, 3 SCR 463 (1993).

  67. 67.

    Barak (2006), p. 118. See also Dworkin (1998) [1986].

  68. 68.

    See in this regard Ng (2007), Mak (2007), Piana (2010).

  69. 69.

    Jackson (2009).

  70. 70.

    See cit., Sect. 2.3.

  71. 71.

    Ibid.

  72. 72.

    See the examples presented cit., Sect. 2.

  73. 73.

    See cit., Sect. 3.1.

  74. 74.

    See, e.g., the Canadian Justice Binnie’s example of the “sniffer dog” cases, in which the Supreme Court of Canada could not make a valuable comparison with the case law of the US Supreme Court because of the different legal implications connected with the search and seizure issue in the US when compared to Canada; Binnie, “Foreign Sources: Searching for Enlightenment or a Fig Leaf?” (London, July 2010).

References

  • Adams, Maurice. 2012. Globaliserende rechtspraak: democratisch omstreden?. Ars Aequi 61: 531-540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alpa, Guido. 1994. General Principles of Law. Annual Survey of International and Comparative Law 1: 1-37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barak, Aharon. 2006. The Judge in a Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutheillet de Lamothe, Oliver. 2005. Constitutional Court Judges’ Roundtable. International Journal of Constitutional Law 3: 550-556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, Ronald M. 1998 [1989]. Law’s Empire. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Errera, Roger. 2004. The Use of Comparative Law before the French Administrative Law Courts. In Comparative Law before the Courts, eds. Guy Canivet, Mads Andenas and Duncan Fairgrieve, 153-164. London: British Institute of International and Comparative Law.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrand, Frédérique. 2012. The French Approach to the Globalisation and Harmonisation of Civil Procedure. In Civil Litigation in a Globalising World, eds. Xandra E. Kramer and Remco C. H. van Rhee, 335-362. The Hague: TMC Asser Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glenn, Patrick H. 2007. Legal Traditions of the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hol, Antoine. 2012. Highest Courts and Transnational Interaction: Introductory and Concluding Remarks. Utrecht Law Review 8: 1-7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, Vicki C. 2009. Constitutional Engagement in a Transnational Era. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lando, Ole et al (eds). 2000-2003. Principles of European Contract Law. The Hague, Boston: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeBel, Louis, and Andrea Gonsalves. 2006. Comments on the Integration of International Law into the Canadian Legal System (International Law and Litigation for US Judges, Federal Judicial Center, 30 October 2006). http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/Intl0616.pdf/$file/Intl0616.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCormick, Neil, and Robert S. Summers (eds). 1997. Interpreting Precedents: A Comparative Study. Dartmouth: Dartmouth Publishing Co Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mak, Elaine. 2007. De rechtspraak in balans. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mak, Elaine. 2013. Judicial Decision-Making in a Globalised World: A Comparative Analysis of the Changing Practices of Western Highest Courts. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattei, Ugo. 1988. Stare Decisis: Il valore del precedente giudiziario negli Stati Uniti d’America. Milano: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muller, Sam and Sidney Richards (eds). 2010. Highest Courts and Globalisation. The Hague: Hague Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ng, Gar Y. 2007. Quality of Judicial Organisation and Checks and Balances. Antwerp: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piana, Daniela. 2010. Judicial Accountabilities in New Europe: From Rule of Law to Quality of Justice. Farnham: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scalia, Antonin G. 1997. A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, ed. Amy Gutmann, 3-47. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schauer, Frederick. 2008. Authority and Authorities. Virginia Law Review 94: 1931-1961.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schauer, Frederick. 2012. Precedent. In The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Law, ed. Andrei Marmor, 123-136. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, Peter S., and John Shand. 1984. Legal Values in Western Society. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinmetz, Pierre. 2009. Contribution à la conférence mondiale sur la justice constitutionnelle (Capetown, 23–24 January 2009). http://www.venice.coe.int/WCCJ/Papers/FRA_Steinmetz_F.pdf.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research for this chapter was supported by a post-doctoral VENI grant from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). A general presentation of this research was published previously in Mak (2013).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Professor of Empirical Study of Public Law, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Elaine Mak

Authors
  1. Elaine Mak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elaine Mak .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, University of Parma, Parma, Italy

    Laura Pineschi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mak, E. (2015). General Principles of Law and Transnational Judicial Communication. In: Pineschi, L. (eds) General Principles of Law - The Role of the Judiciary. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 46. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19180-5_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation