Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Opposition

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Judges Against Justice

  • 1913 Accesses

Abstract

Legal professions have often been active in the building of liberal institutions. In many instances of tyrannical and oppressive rule, judges, as well as lawyers, are brave protectors of the rights and freedoms of individuals. In the examples I have chosen for this book, however, the judiciary have failed and become accomplice to the oppression. Even though the judiciary in these cases has contributed to the atrocities of oppressive regimes, this is not the whole picture. “Despite the deep fall of our supreme servants of the law, the flame of law never quite extinguished in our judiciary through these most difficult years”, wrote professor and former minister of justice in the Weimar Republic for the Social Democrat Party Gustav Radbruch after the collapse of the Nazi regime.

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.

    Radbruch (1948), col. 64.

  2. 2.

    Niethammer (1946), p. 12.

  3. 3.

    Curran (1998–1999), pp. 8–9.

  4. 4.

    President of the Constitutional Court of South Africa Arthur Chaskalson, quoted from Dyzenhaus (1998), p. 20.

  5. 5.

    SA Truth and Reconciliation Commission Final report, p. 104.

  6. 6.

    Osiel (1995), p. 486.

  7. 7.

    See Gerrens (2009), pp. 9–10.

  8. 8.

    See Essner (2002), pp. 113–133.

  9. 9.

    The Act is available at http://www.disa.ukzn.ac.za/index.php?option=com_displaydc&recordID=leg19510618.028.020.046 (01.03.2013). See Beinart (1958), pp. 587–608 and Weinrib (1998) for an overview and discussion of the conflict between Parliament and the Appellate Division over this Act.

  10. 10.

    Harris v. Minister of the Interior 1952 (2) SA 428 (A). For a comprehensive discussion of the legal issues of the case under the English and South African doctrines of parliamentary sovereignty, see Cowen (1952), pp. 282–296 (Part I) and Cowen (1953), pp. 273–298 (part II).

  11. 11.

    See Weinrib (1998), p. 356.

  12. 12.

    Minister of the Interior v. Harris 1952 (4) SA 769 (A).

  13. 13.

    Collins v. The Minister of the Interior 1957 (1) SA 552 (A).

  14. 14.

    See Beinart (1958), p. 603.

  15. 15.

    See Curran (1998–1999), pp. 30–34.

  16. 16.

    See Tamm (1984), pp. 35–62.

  17. 17.

    One of the justices wrote a book describing the events regarding the Supreme Court in 1940, Schjeldrup (1945). The last chapter deals with the events described here.

  18. 18.

    Michielsen (2004), pp. 32–33 and 50–55.

  19. 19.

    Michielsen (2004), pp. 55–68.

  20. 20.

    Osiel (1995), pp. 524–526.

  21. 21.

    Osiel (1995), pp. 534–535.

  22. 22.

    Schorn (1959), pp. 144–169.

  23. 23.

    Scholz (1936), pp. 401–422.

  24. 24.

    Hempfer (1974), p. 105.

  25. 25.

    Schorn (1959) gives a digest of some of the case law of the court. For a thorough analysis of case law against basic tenets of the rule of law, see Hempfer (1974).

  26. 26.

    See Herbert (2011), pp. 150–163 on this conflict.

  27. 27.

    Fraenkel (1941), p. 27.

  28. 28.

    Scholz (1936), p. 421.

  29. 29.

    Bach (1938), pp. 199–205.

  30. 30.

    See Adami (1939), pp. 486–491.

  31. 31.

    Höhn (1938), pp. 330–333.

  32. 32.

    Hempfer (1974), pp. 175–178.

  33. 33.

    Niethammer (1946), pp. 11–14.

  34. 34.

    RG., 1 Siv.Sen., 27. June 1936, Seufferts Archiv 91, 65; see, for a comment, Rüthers (2007), pp. 258–259.

  35. 35.

    Concerning this case, see p. 180–181.

  36. 36.

    See Gerrens (2009), pp. 130–131.

  37. 37.

    Smid (2002), pp. 203–209.

  38. 38.

    The quotes from the letters are taken from Gerrens (2009), p. 108.

  39. 39.

    Schorn (1959), pp. 442–444.

  40. 40.

    For his career as a judge based on his file in the Nazi Ministry of Justice, see Gruchmann (2011).

  41. 41.

    See Döring (2011), p. 180. See also Lothar Kreyssig’s own recollection in Bericht des Amtsgerichtsrats i. R. Dr. Lothar Kreyssig vom 16.10.1969, p. 5, Institut für Zeitgeschichte München–Berlin, Kreyssig, Dr. Lothar ZS-1956 http://www.ifz-muenchen.de/archiv/zs/zs-1956.pdf (last accessed 11.04.14).

  42. 42.

    Schorn (1959), pp. 649–652. It is also mentioned in The Justice Case (1951), pp. 1016–1017 as an example of instruction of the judges by the Ministry of Justice through its Judges’ Letters.

  43. 43.

    See Pauer-Studer (2012), pp. 367–390.

  44. 44.

    Pauer-Studer (2012), p. 384.

  45. 45.

    Pauer-Studer (2012), p. 388.

  46. 46.

    Schorn (1959), pp. 32–35.

  47. 47.

    See Angermund (1990), p. 213.

  48. 48.

    Müller-Hill (2012), pp. 43–44.

  49. 49.

    Müller-Hill (2012), p. 30.

  50. 50.

    Müller-Hill (2012), p. 30.

  51. 51.

    Müller-Hill (2012), p. 143.

  52. 52.

    Helmke (2002), p. 296.

  53. 53.

    Dyzenhaus (2010), p. 48 and, further, p. 227 below.

  54. 54.

    Dyzenhaus (2010), pp. 148–164.

  55. 55.

    Rossouw v. Sachs 1964 (2) SA 551 (A).

  56. 56.

    Nkwinti v. Commissioner of Police 1986 (2) SA 421 E.

  57. 57.

    Basson (1987), p. 41.

  58. 58.

    Dyzenhaus (2010), p. 53.

  59. 59.

    Dyzenhaus (2010), p. 161.

  60. 60.

    Osiel (1995), pp. 537–538.

  61. 61.

    Pereira (2005), location 2132.

  62. 62.

    Michielsen (2004), p. 179.

References

  • Adami FW (1939) Das Programm der NSDAP und die Rechtsprechung. Deutsches Recht 486–491

    Google Scholar 

  • Angermund R (1990) Deutsche Richtershaft 1919–1945. Fischer, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach (1938) Die Rechtsprechung des Preußischen Oberverwaltungsgerichts im Lichte der nationalsozialistischen Weltanschauung und Rechtsauffassung. Deutsche Verwaltung 15:203

    Google Scholar 

  • Basson D (1987) Judicial activism in a state of emergency: an examination of recent decisions of the South African courts. S Afr J Hum Rights 3:28–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Beinart B (1958) The South African appeal court and judicial review. Mod Law Rev 21:587–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowen DV (1952) Legislature and the judiciary. Mod Law Rev 15:282–296 (Part I)

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowen DV (1953) Legislature and the judiciary. Mod Law Rev 16:273–298 (part II)

    Google Scholar 

  • Curran VG (1998–1999) The legalization of racism in a constitutional state: democracy’s suicide in Vichy France. Hastings Law J 50:1–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Döring H-J (ed) (2011) Lothar Kreyssig Aufsätze, Autobiographie und Dokumente. Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, Leipzig

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyzenhaus D (1998) Judging the judges, judging ourselves truth, reconciliation and the apartheid legal order. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyzenhaus D (2010) Hard cases in wicked legal systems pathologies of legality, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Essner C (2002) Die “Nürnberger Gesetze” oder Die Verwaltung des Rassenwahns 1933–1945. Paderborn, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraenkel E (1941) The dual state a contribution to the theory of dictatorship. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerrens U (2009) Rüdiger Schleicher Leben zwischen Staatsdienst und Verschwörung. Gütersloher Verlagshaus, Gütersloh

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruchmann L (2011) Ein unbequemer Amtsrichter im Dritten Reich aus den Personalakten des Dr. Lothar Kreyssig. In: Döring H-J (ed) Lothar Kreyssig Aufsätze, Autobiographie und Dokumente. Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, Leipzig

    Google Scholar 

  • Helmke G (2002) The logic of strategic defection: court-executive relations in Argentina under dictatorship and democracy. Am Polit Sci Rev 96:291–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hempfer W (1974) Die nationalsozialistische Staatsauffassung in der Rechtsprechung des Preußischen Oberverwaltungsgerichts. Dunker & Humblot, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Herbert U (2011) Best Biographische Studien über Radikalismus, Weltanschauung und Vernunft 1903–1989, 5th edn. Verlag J.H.W Dietz Nachf, Bonn

    Google Scholar 

  • Höhn R (1938) Alte und neue Polizeirechtsauffassung in der Praxis. Deutsche Verwaltung 330–333

    Google Scholar 

  • Michielsen JNME (2004) The “Nazification” and “Denazification” of the Courts in Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. University of Maastricht, Maastricht

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Hill WO (2012) “Man hat es kommen sehen und ist doch erschüttert” Das Kriegstagebuch eines deutschen Heeresrichters 1944/45. Siedler, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Niethammer E (1946) Fortdauende Wirksamkeit der Entscheidungen des Reichgerichts. DRZ 11–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Osiel MJ (1995) Dialogue with dictators: judicial resistance in Argentina and Brazil. Law Soc Inq 20:481–560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pauer-Studer H (2012) Law and morality under evil conditions: the SS Judge Konrad Morgen. Jurisprudence 3(2):367–390

    Google Scholar 

  • Pereira AW (2005) Political (in)justice authoritarianism and the rule of law in Brazil, Chile and Argentina. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh (Kindle edition)

    Google Scholar 

  • Radbruch G (1948) Des Reichministeriums Ruhm und Ende, Zum Nürnberger Juristenurteil. Süddeutsche Juristenzeitung col. 64

    Google Scholar 

  • Rüthers B (2007) Hatte die Rechtsperversion in den Deutschen Diktaturen ein Gesicht? Juristenzeitung 11:556–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schjeldrup F (1945) Fra Norges Kamp for Retten 1940 i Høyesterett. Grøndahl & Søn, Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholz F (1936) Die neue Rechtsprechung des Preußischen Oberverwaltungsgerichts. Verwaltungsarchiv 41:401–422

    Google Scholar 

  • Schorn H (1959) Der Richter im Dritten Reich Geschichte und Dokumente. Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Smid M (2002) Hans von Dohnanyi Christine Bonhoeffer, Eine Ehe in Widerstand gegen Hitler. Gütersloher Verlagshaus, Gütersloher, pp 203–209

    Google Scholar 

  • Tamm D (1984) Retsopgøret efter besættelsen. Jurist- og Økonomforbundets forlag, København

    Google Scholar 

  • Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals, vol III, the Justice Case, Washington, 1951

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinrib LE (1998) Sustaining constitutional values: the Schreiner legacy. S Afr J Hum Rights 14:351–372

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Hans Petter Graver

Authors
  1. Hans Petter Graver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Graver, H.P. (2015). The Opposition. In: Judges Against Justice. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44293-7_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation