当法律原教旨主义遇到政治正义:波兰的案例

IF 0.7 Q2 Social Sciences ISRAEL LAW REVIEW Pub Date : 2022-09-20 DOI:10.1017/s0021223722000036
T. Koncewicz
{"title":"当法律原教旨主义遇到政治正义:波兰的案例","authors":"T. Koncewicz","doi":"10.1017/s0021223722000036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To Professor Martin Shapiro, With friendship, gratitude, and admiration The ruling of 22 October 2020 concerning termination of pregnancy in Case K 1/20, handed down by the body once known as the Polish Constitutional Court, has devastated the legal and social landscape in Poland. The decision ruled as unconstitutional the provision that allowed medically assisted termination in cases where prenatal screening or other medical considerations indicated a high probability of a severe and irreversible abnormality or an incurable disease of the fetus. This analysis argues that the ruling is the most serious attempt to discredit and humiliate the Polish Constitution of 1997, and stands as the ultimate proof of weaponising judicial review. The argument will be made that if one wishes to understand the extent of the capture of independent institutions by the ruling majority, the ruling under consideration must be read and considered in the light of a more general context. Only by going beyond and contextualising it, can one grasp the extent to which the constitutional profile of a state has been altered by methods of unconstitutional capture. The analysis argues that once we contextualise the ruling and view it in a more systemic light, there are important systemic signposts that will help to explain how we arrived here and, more importantly, what is next. These signposts, in turn, contain a cautionary tale of the institutional fragility that is relevant for liberal democracies.","PeriodicalId":44911,"journal":{"name":"ISRAEL LAW REVIEW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"When Legal Fundamentalism Meets Political Justice: The Case of Poland\",\"authors\":\"T. Koncewicz\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0021223722000036\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"To Professor Martin Shapiro, With friendship, gratitude, and admiration The ruling of 22 October 2020 concerning termination of pregnancy in Case K 1/20, handed down by the body once known as the Polish Constitutional Court, has devastated the legal and social landscape in Poland. The decision ruled as unconstitutional the provision that allowed medically assisted termination in cases where prenatal screening or other medical considerations indicated a high probability of a severe and irreversible abnormality or an incurable disease of the fetus. This analysis argues that the ruling is the most serious attempt to discredit and humiliate the Polish Constitution of 1997, and stands as the ultimate proof of weaponising judicial review. The argument will be made that if one wishes to understand the extent of the capture of independent institutions by the ruling majority, the ruling under consideration must be read and considered in the light of a more general context. Only by going beyond and contextualising it, can one grasp the extent to which the constitutional profile of a state has been altered by methods of unconstitutional capture. The analysis argues that once we contextualise the ruling and view it in a more systemic light, there are important systemic signposts that will help to explain how we arrived here and, more importantly, what is next. These signposts, in turn, contain a cautionary tale of the institutional fragility that is relevant for liberal democracies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44911,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ISRAEL LAW REVIEW\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ISRAEL LAW REVIEW\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0021223722000036\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ISRAEL LAW REVIEW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0021223722000036","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

致马丁·夏皮罗教授,带着友谊、感激和钦佩之情。波兰宪法法院于2020年10月22日作出的关于K 1/20案终止妊娠的裁决,摧毁了波兰的法律和社会格局。该决定裁定,在产前筛查或其他医学考虑表明胎儿极有可能出现严重且不可逆转的异常或不治之症的情况下,允许医疗协助终止妊娠的条款违宪。这一分析认为,该裁决是抹黑和羞辱1997年波兰宪法的最严重企图,也是司法审查武器化的最终证据。将提出的论点是,如果人们希望了解统治多数对独立机构的占领程度,则必须根据更普遍的背景来阅读和考虑正在审议的裁决。只有超越它并将其置于背景中,人们才能了解一个国家的宪法形象在多大程度上被违宪捕获的方法所改变。分析认为,一旦我们将裁决置于背景中,并从更系统的角度看待它,就会有重要的系统性路标,有助于解释我们是如何来到这里的,更重要的是,下一步会发生什么。反过来,这些路标包含了一个与自由民主相关的制度脆弱性的警示故事。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
When Legal Fundamentalism Meets Political Justice: The Case of Poland
To Professor Martin Shapiro, With friendship, gratitude, and admiration The ruling of 22 October 2020 concerning termination of pregnancy in Case K 1/20, handed down by the body once known as the Polish Constitutional Court, has devastated the legal and social landscape in Poland. The decision ruled as unconstitutional the provision that allowed medically assisted termination in cases where prenatal screening or other medical considerations indicated a high probability of a severe and irreversible abnormality or an incurable disease of the fetus. This analysis argues that the ruling is the most serious attempt to discredit and humiliate the Polish Constitution of 1997, and stands as the ultimate proof of weaponising judicial review. The argument will be made that if one wishes to understand the extent of the capture of independent institutions by the ruling majority, the ruling under consideration must be read and considered in the light of a more general context. Only by going beyond and contextualising it, can one grasp the extent to which the constitutional profile of a state has been altered by methods of unconstitutional capture. The analysis argues that once we contextualise the ruling and view it in a more systemic light, there are important systemic signposts that will help to explain how we arrived here and, more importantly, what is next. These signposts, in turn, contain a cautionary tale of the institutional fragility that is relevant for liberal democracies.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
14.30%
发文量
19
期刊最新文献
Politics and Justice at the International Criminal Court The Effect of Russia's Invasion of Ukraine on Non-Human Animals: International Humanitarian Law Perspectives The Conduct of Hostilities, Attack Effects, and Criminal Accountability Charging Aggression as a Crime against Humanity? Revisiting the Proposal after Russia's Invasion of Ukraine How Misuse of Emergency Powers Dismantled the Rule of Law in Hungary
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1