Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Judicial Acceptance of Oppression

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Judges Against Justice

  • 1808 Accesses

Abstract

It appears that rulers may, in general, depend upon judges not challenging the core interests of the regime. Courts often accept the legality of new authoritarian regimes. Only a few courts have taken the high road of strict constitutionalism and actively challenged the legality of successful coups. In dozens of authoritarian states, we can observe core compliance with regime interests by the judiciary. This was the fact in Germany, Argentina, and Chile. Even courts in states occupied by foreign forces often bend to the force of the situation and lend legitimacy to the oppressive means of the occupier. In some cases, the judiciary even takes the lead in developing oppressive law.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
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.

    Carmen (1972), pp. 1059–1060.

  2. 2.

    Mahmud (1994), pp. 138–139.

  3. 3.

    See Pauer-Studer (2014), pp. 36–38.

  4. 4.

    See Osiel (1995), pp. 511–512 on Argentina and pp. 527–528 on Brazil.

  5. 5.

    Hilbink (2008), p. 104.

  6. 6.

    Ginsburg and Moustafa (2008), p. 15, mentioning specifically Egypt, the Philippines, Pakistan, Ghana, Zimbabwe, Uganda, Nigeria, Cyprus, Seychelles, and Grenada. Osiel (1995) has references in footnote 58 to rulings of the supreme courts of Pakistan, Uganda, and Rhodesia all accepting the coups d’état on the basis that the new rulers were successful in replacing the former regimes and in establishing public order on a new basis. See p. 497.

  7. 7.

    Snyder (1983–1984), p. 517.

  8. 8.

    Osiel (1995), p. 521.

  9. 9.

    See Strenge (2002) for a study of the transition to Nazi rule from a legal point of view.

  10. 10.

    Strenge (2002), p. 191.

  11. 11.

    See more closely below pp. 93–95.

  12. 12.

    Madzimbamuto v. Lardner-Burke [1969] 1 AC 645.

  13. 13.

    Michielsen (2004), pp. 125–131.

  14. 14.

    Michielsen (2004), p. 122.

  15. 15.

    Michielsen (2004), p. 153.

  16. 16.

    See Tamm (1984), pp. 35–62.

  17. 17.

    Tamm (1984), pp. 44–45.

  18. 18.

    Tamm (1984), p. 60.

  19. 19.

    Dodson et al. (1997), p. 61.

  20. 20.

    Dyzenhaus (2010), pp. 48–54.

  21. 21.

    Osiel (1995), pp. 548–549.

  22. 22.

    Pereira (2005), loc. 942–950.

  23. 23.

    Kirchheimer (1961), p. 197.

  24. 24.

    Linder (1993), p. 1113.

  25. 25.

    Curran (1998–1999), p. 31.

  26. 26.

    See Angermund (1990), p. 191.

  27. 27.

    Critch (2012), p. 362.

  28. 28.

    Rüthers (2012), p. 479.

  29. 29.

    Case IV 94/34 12. July 1934, Juristische Wochenschrift 1934, pp. 2613–2615.

  30. 30.

    Eine Ehe kann von dem Ehegatten angefochten werden, der sich bei der Eheschließung in der Person des anderen Ehegatten oder über solche persönliche Eigenschaften des anderen Ehegatten geirrt hat, die ihn bei Kenntnis der Sachlage und bei verständiger Würdigung des Wesens der Ehe von der Eingehung der Ehe abgehalten haben würden, BGB § 1333.

  31. 31.

    Loewenstein (1935–1936), p. 796.

  32. 32.

    See Angermund (1990), p. 33.

  33. 33.

    See further Loewenstein (1935–1936), pp. 785–787.

  34. 34.

    Ogorek (2008), pp. 292–293.

  35. 35.

    RG., IV. SivSen., 2. May 1938, Juristische Wochenschrift 1938, p. 2475.

  36. 36.

    RG., 1 Siv.Sen., 27. June 1936, Seufferts Archiv 91, 65.

  37. 37.

    See Angermund (1990), p. 124.

  38. 38.

    See Ogorek (2008).

  39. 39.

    Großer Senat für Straffsachen, 23. February 1938, Entscheidungen des Reichsgerichts, Strafsachen 72 91.

  40. 40.

    The seminal study of this, with an emphasis on German private law, is Rüthers (2012).

  41. 41.

    Fraenkel (1941), p. 43.

  42. 42.

    Fraenkel (1941), p. 45.

  43. 43.

    Adami (1939), pp. 486–491.

  44. 44.

    Bach (1938), p. 203.

  45. 45.

    Rüthers (2012), p. 277.

  46. 46.

    Dyzenhaus (1998), p. 149.

  47. 47.

    See Landis (1961), pp. 2–3. For a brief historical background to the apartheid legislation, see Dyzenhaus (2010), pp. 34–38.

  48. 48.

    Haysom and Plasket (1988), p. 307.

  49. 49.

    Dyzenhaus (2010), p. 74.

  50. 50.

    Landis (1961), p. 16.

  51. 51.

    Landis (1961), p. 52.

  52. 52.

    See Dyzenhaus (2010), pp. 39–40.

  53. 53.

    Minister of Post and Telegraphs v. Rasool, 1934 AD 167.

  54. 54.

    See Dyzenhaus (2010), pp. 44–48.

  55. 55.

    R v. Pitje, 1960 (4) SA 709 (A).

  56. 56.

    See Dyzenhaus (2010), pp. 69.

  57. 57.

    Minister of the Interior v. Lockhat 1961 (2) SA 587 (A).

  58. 58.

    Dyzenhaus (2010), p. 71.

  59. 59.

    Rossouw v. Sachs 1964 (2) SA 551 (A), Judgment March 24, 1964.

  60. 60.

    Dyzenhaus (2010), pp. 53–54.

  61. 61.

    Osiel (1995), p. 526.

  62. 62.

    Liversidge v. Anderson and Morrison (1941) 3 All E.R. 338 (H.L.).

  63. 63.

    Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944) and Dennis v. United States 341 U.S. 494 (1951).

  64. 64.

    Simpson (1988), p. 124.

  65. 65.

    R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Hosenball [1977] 3 All E.R. 452.

  66. 66.

    See Dyzenhaus (2010), chapter 3.

  67. 67.

    Dennis v. United States 341 U.S. 494.

  68. 68.

    SOU 2000:20, p. 33.

  69. 69.

    Buck v. Bell, Superintendent of State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble Minded, 271 U.S. 200 1927.

  70. 70.

    ECtHR, judgment 17 January 2012 The case of Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom, (Applications nos. 66069/09 and 130/10 and 3896/10), paragraph 89.

  71. 71.

    See Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003).

  72. 72.

    Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003).

  73. 73.

    United States of America v. Marion Hungerford 465 F.3d 1113.

  74. 74.

    D. Utah v. Angelos, 2004 U.S. 345 F.Supp.2d 1227.

  75. 75.

    C.A.10 (Utah) 2006 U.S. v. Angelos 433 F.3d 738.

  76. 76.

    Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (2003).

  77. 77.

    Deal v. U.S. 508 US 129 (1993).

  78. 78.

    Smith v. US 508 US 223 (1993).

  79. 79.

    Graham v. Florida 560 US—08-7412 (2010).

  80. 80.

    Circuit Court of Florida, Fourth Judicial Circuit. Duval County State of Florida v. Terrance Graham. No. 16-2003-CF-11912-AXXX-MA. May 25, 2006, 2006 WL 6283414 (Fla.Cir.Ct.).

  81. 81.

    Cited from. Graham v. State 982 So.2d 43 Fla.App. 1 Dist. 2008 April 10, 2008.

  82. 82.

    See the overview of Justice O’Connor in Lockyer v. Andrade 538 US 63 (2003), pp. 72–73.

  83. 83.

    Müller (1989), p. 87.

  84. 84.

    Kirchheimer (1961), p. 322.

  85. 85.

    See Oleson (2007), p. 679.

  86. 86.

    Civil Disobedience—The Role of Judges—The Ninth Circuit Confirms Mandatory Sentence—United States v. Hungerford, 465 F.3d I i Q (9th Cir. 2006). 120 Harv. L. Rev. 1988 2006–2007.

  87. 87.

    Oleson (2007), p. 696.

  88. 88.

    The Justice Case (1951), p. 1026.

  89. 89.

    Müller-Hill (2012), p. 30.

  90. 90.

    Fraser (2005), p. 109 with further references.

  91. 91.

    Tamm (1984), p. 607.

  92. 92.

    Kirchheimer (1961), p. 322.

  93. 93.

    Curran (1998–1999), p. 11.

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 

  • Carmen RD (1972) Constitutionalism and the Supreme Court in a changing Philippine polity. Asian Surv 13:1050–1061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Critch R (2012) Positivism and relativism in post-war jurisprudence. Jurisprudence 3(2):347–365

    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 

  • Dodson JM, Jackson DW, O’Shaughnessy LN (1997) Human rights and the Salvadoran judiciary: the competing values of independence and accountability. Int J Hum Rights 1(4):50–65

    Article  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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser D (2005) Law after Auschwitz: towards a jurisprudence of the Holocaust. Carolina Academic Press, Durham

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburg T, Moustafa T (2008) Introduction: the functions of courts in authoritarian politics. In: Ginsburg T, Moustafa T (eds) Rule by law: the politics of courts in authoritarian regimes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Haysom N, Plasket C (1988) The war against law: judicial activism and the appellate division. S Afr J Hum Rights 4:303–333

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilbink L (2008) Agents of anti-politics: courts in Pinochet’s Chile. In: Ginsburg T, Moustafa T (eds) Rule by law: the politics of courts in authoritarian regimes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirchheimer O (1961) Political justice: the use of legal procedure for political ends. Princeton University Press, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Landis ES (1961) South African Apartheid legislation I: fundamental structure. Yale Law J 71:1–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linder DO (1993) Journeying through the valley of Evil. N C Law Rev 71:1111–1150

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein K (1935–1936) Law in the Third Reich. Yale Law Rev 45:779–815

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahmud T (1994) Jurisprudence of successful treason: Coup d’Etat and common law. Cornell Int Law J 27:49–140

    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 I (1989) Furchtbare Juristen – Die unbewältigte Vergangenheit unsere Justiz. Knaur, München

    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 

  • Ogorek R (2008) “Rassenschande” und juristische Methode Die argumentative Grammatik des Reichsgerichts bei der Anwendung des Blutschutzgesetzes von 1935. In Regina Ogorek, Aufklärung über Justiz, 1. Halbbd.: Abhandlungen und Rezensionen, V. Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Oleson JC (2007) The antigone dilemma: when the paths of law and morality diverge. Cardozo Law Rev 29:669–702

    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 (2014) Einleitung: Rechtfertigung des Unrechts. Das Rechtsdenken im Nationalsozialismus. In: Pauer-Studer H, Fink J (eds) Rechtfertigungen des Unrechts Da Rechtsdenken im Nationalsozialismus in Originaltexten. Suhrkamp, Berlin

    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 

  • Rüthers B (2012) Die unbegrenzte Auslegung: Zum Wandel der Privatrechtsordnung im Nationalsozialismus 7. Ausg. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson AWB (1988) Rhetoric, reality and regulation 18B. Denning Law J 3:123–153

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder F (1983–1984) State of Siege and rule of law in Argentina: the politics and rhetoric of vindication. Lawyer Americas 15:503–520

    Google Scholar 

  • SOU 2000:20 Steriliseringsfrågan, Stockholm 2000

    Google Scholar 

  • Strenge I (2002) Machtübernahme 1933: Alles auf dem legalen Weg? Ducker und Humblot, Berlin

    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 

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). Judicial Acceptance of Oppression. In: Judges Against Justice. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44293-7_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation