![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This paper analyses the role of a code of ethics for judges in connection to a contemporary definition of responsive ‘T-shaped’ judicial professionalism and the professional-ethical questions which can arise in judicial decision-making regarding politically and societally controversial issues. The paper’s case study focuses on climate-change related litigation in Dutch courts. First, a theoretical framework which conceptualises practical and ethical elements of T-shaped judicial professionalism as ‘virtuous judgecraft’, building on the work of Kritzer and Van Domselaar, addresses the knowledge, skills, and ethical mindset that judges need for fulfilling their roles in relation to this notion of professionalism. Next, the paper analyses to what extent connections with guidelines of the Dutch Guide to Judicial Conduct (GJC), considered in light of the developed framework of virtuous judgecraft, can be recognised in the approaches of judges in the landmark Urgenda judgments. Based on this analysis, the paper presents conclusions regarding the value of the GJC for enhancing judicial performance and for explaining judgments, in particular those which involve complex societal issues, to parties and the general public.
Acknowledgement
Professor of Jurisprudence at Utrecht University. The research for this article was supported by a Vidi research grant (2016) from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). Thanks to the participants in the workshops for this special issue and the peer reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions on previous draft versions of this article and to Koen Haex for research assistance.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 G. Di Federico, ‘Judicial Accountability and Conduct: An Overview’ in A. Seibert-Fohr (ed), Judicial Independence in Transition (Springer 2012) 88.
2 Nederlandse Vereniging voor Rechtspraak, ‘NVvR-Rechterscode’ (2011) <https://nvvr.org/uploads/documenten/nvvr-rechterscode.pdf> accessed 3 April 2022. A translation in English was published in: Judges for Judges, ‘Matters of Principle’ (2012) <https://www.rechtspraak.nl/sitecollectiondocuments/matters-of-principle.pdf> accessed 3 April 2022.
3 P. Blokker, ‘Populist Understandings of the Law: A Conservative Backlash?’ (2020), Partecipazione e conflitto <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346548193_Populist_Understandings_of_the_Law_A_Conservative_Backlash> accessed 3 April 2022, 15.
4 R. Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously (Duckworth 1978) 81.
5 See also Davies and Henderson in this special issue.
6 District Court of the Hague, 24 June 2015, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2015:7145; Court of Appeal of the Hague, 9 October 2018, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2018:2591; Supreme Court of the Netherlands, 20 December 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2006.
7 W. Veraart, ‘Klassiekers democratische rechtsstaat #21: De toekomst en het verleden’ (Nederland Rechtsstaat, 2 September 2021) <https://www.nederlandrechtsstaat.nl/21-de-toekomst-en-het-verleden/> accessed 3 April 2022.
8 Di Federico (n 1) 90; E. Mak, ‘Researching Judicial Ethical Codes, or: how to eat a mille-feuille?’ [2018] 9(3) International Journal for Court Administration.
9 Compare J. Lichtenberg, ‘What Are Codes of Ethics For?’, in M. Coady and S. Block (eds.), Codes of Ethics and the Professions (Melbourne University Press 1996), 15-16.
10 J. Bell, Judiciaries within Europe: A Comparative Review (Cambridge University Press 2006).
11 B. Tamanaha, On the Rule of Law: History, Politics, Theory (Cambridge University Press 2012).
12 ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5337.
13 See Hegger et al, Van Domselaar and De Bock, and Davies and Henderson in this special issue.
14 E. Mak, The T-shaped Lawyer and Beyond: Rethinking Legal Professionalism and Legal Education for Contemporary Societies (Eleven International Publishing 2017).
15 H.M. Kritzer, ‘Toward a Theorization of Craft’ [2007] 16(3) Social & Legal Studies, 321; I. van Domselaar, ‘Moral Quality in Adjudication: On Judicial Virtues and Civic Friendship’ [2015] 44(1) Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy 24.
16 Mak, ‘Researching Judicial Ethical Codes’ (n 8) 59.
17 A. Brenninkmeijer and D. Bish, ‘Professional Ethics for Judges – Lessons Learned from the Past. Dialogue as Didactics to Develop Moral Leadership for Judges’ [2021] Law & Method 3.
18 ibid 4.
19 A.R. Mackor, ‘Juridische beroepsethiek. Over macht en moral, soft law en soft skills, T-vormige juristen en kansen-rechters’ in A. Berlee, M. Bovens, J. Buiting, A.R. Mackor, E. Mak, J. Silvis and E. Tjong Tjin Tai, De toekomst van de jurist, de jurist van de toekomst (Wolters Kluwer 2020) 87.
20 Kritzer (n 15).
21 Kritzer (n 15) 329 and 332-34.
22 ibid 334-37.
23 Brenninkmeijer and Bish (n 17) 2.
24 ibid 3.
25 This is highlighted for the Dutch judiciary in section 3 of the GJC.
26 P.M. Langbroek and M. Westenberg, Court Administration and Quality Work in Judiciaries in Four European Countries: Empirical Exploration and Constitutional Implications (Staempfli Verlag 2018).
27 Lichtenberg (n 9) 15-16.
28 The professional standards developed within the Dutch judiciary are available here: https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Rechtspraak-in-Nederland/Rechters/Paginas/De-professionele-standaarden-van-de-rechters.aspx accessed 3 April 2022.
29 https://www.rechtspraak.nl/SiteCollectionDocuments/professionele-standaard-meervoudig-beslissen.pdf accessed 3 April 2022.
30 Di Federico (n 1) 97.
31 ibid 99.
32 S. Dijkstra, ‘De pratende, schrijvende en twitterende rechter: terughoudendheid troef’ [2017] 1 Rechtstreeks, 15-16.
33 Mak, ‘Researching Judicial Ethical Codes’ (n 8), 59.
34 ibid; P.M. Gyöngyi, ‘The Obligation of Judges to Uphold Rules of Positive Law and Possibly Conflicting Ethical Values in Context: The Case of Criminalization of Homelessness in Hungary’ [2020] 49(2) Netherlands Journal of Legal Philosophy 196.
35 D. Kosar, ‘Beyond Judicial Councils: Forms, Rationales and Impact of Judicial Self-Governance in Europe’ [2018] 19(7) German Law Journal, 1567.
36 E. Mak, ‘Judicial Self Government in the Netherlands: Demarcating Autonomy’ [2018] 19(7) German Law Journal, 1801.
37 A.R. Mackor, ‘Onderwijs juridische beroepsethiek aan rechtenstudenten’ [2021] 7 Law & Method.
38 A.R. Mackor, ‘Rechterlijke macht: geschraagd of ondermijnd door kernwaarden?’ [2014] 1 Rechtsgeleerd Magazijn THEMIS, 9.
39 T.R. Tyler, ‘Public Trust and Confidence in Legal Authorities: What Do Majority and Minority Group Members Want from the Law and Legal Authorities?’ [2001] 19 Behavioral Science and the Law, 215.
40 P. Nonet and P. Selznick, Law and Society in Transition: Towards Responsive Law (Transaction Publishers 2005, first published 1978), Chapter 4.
41 L.M. Henderson, ‘Internalizing Contestation in Process-Based Judicial Review’ [2019] 20(8) German Law Journal 1167.
42 A. Garapon, Bien juger: Essai sur le rituel judiciaire (Odile Jacob 1996).
43 D. Luban, ‘Settlements and the Erosion of the Public Realm’ [1995] 83 Georgetown Law Journal, 2619.
44 L.F.M. Ansems, K. van den Bos & E. Mak, ‘Speaking of Justice: A Qualitative Interview Study on Perceived Procedural Justice Among Defendants in Dutch Criminal Cases’ [2020] 54(3) Law & Society Review, 643.
45 S. Murray, ‘Keeping It in the Neighbourhood? Neighbourhood Courts in the Australian Context’ [2009] 35(1) Monash University Law Review, 74.
46 G. Kaufmann-Kohler and T. Schultz, Online Dispute Resolution: Challenges for Contemporary Justice (Kluwer Law International 2004).
47 In the GJC, it is indicated that: ‘The masculine form is used as a generic term referring to both men and women’ (footnote 5).
48 Mak, ‘The T-shaped Lawyer and Beyond’ (n 14) 7-8.
49 ibid 16-19.
50 Kritzer (n 15) 334-37.
51 ibid 337.
52 Van Domselaar, ‘Moral Quality in Adjudication’ (n 15) 24.
53 ibid 39-40.
54 Kritzer (n 15) 335.
55 ibid.
56 Mackor (n 19) 83.
57 Luban (n 43) 2632-633.
58 Kritzer (n 15) 326.
59 ibid 336.
60 Lichtenberg (n 9), 6-7.
61 Van Domselaar, ‘Moral Quality in Adjudication’ (n 15) 29.
62 ibid 31.
63 I. van Domselaar, ‘The Perceptive Judge’ [2018] Jurisprudence 9(1) 85.
64 Van Domselaar, ‘Moral Quality in Adjudication’ (n 15) 32.
65 ibid.
66 ‘Jantje zag eens pruimen hangen, O! als eieren zo groot’. Full version and English translation available here: https://www.mamalisa.com/?t=es&p=2662 accessed 3 April 2022.
67 Van Domselaar, ‘Moral Quality in Adjudication’ (n 15) 33.
68 ibid.
69 ibid 34.
70 ibid.
71 ibid 40.
72 Kritzer (n 15) 333.
73 Van Domselaar, ‘Moral Quality in Adjudication’ (n 15) 40.
74 ibid 41.
75 ibid 42, citing J.M. Cooper, ‘Aristotle on the Forms of Friendship’ in J.M. Cooper (ed.), Reason and Emotion: Essays on Ancient Moral Psychology and Ethical Theory (Princeton University Press 1999), 371.
76 ibid 42-43.
77 ibid 43.
78 Ansems, Van den Bos and Mak (n 44) 655.
79 Van Domselaar, ‘Moral Quality in Adjudication’ (n 15) 43.
80 See also Davies and Henderson in this special issue.
81 J. Setzer and C. Higham, Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: A Snapshot (Policy Report, July 2021) (Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science 2021).
82 ibid 5.
83 ibid 6.
84 ibid.
85 ibid.
86 L.E. Burgers, Justitia, the People’s Power and Mother Earth (PhD dissertation Amsterdam UvA 2020), 63.
87 J. Mommers, ‘Het proces: de mensheid versus de Nederlandse staat’ De Correspondent (10 December 2013) <https://decorrespondent.nl/466/het-proces-de-mensheid-versus-de-nederlandse-staat/51357394-7e0b1be2> accessed 3 April 2022; my translation.
88 G. Boogaard, ‘Urgenda en de rol van de rechter. Over de ondraaglijke leegheid van de trias politica’, [2016] 65(1) Ars Aequi 26; Burgers (n 87) 45.
89 Burgers (n 86) 50.
90 See also below, section 3.1.
91 Burgers (n 86) 63.
92 G. Boogaard, ‘De lessen van de Urgenda-uitspraak’ (2020) Binnenlands bestuur <https://www.binnenlandsbestuur.nl/bestuur-en-organisatie/de-urgenda-uitspraak> accessed 19 April 2022; Burgers (n 87) 33.
93 See Mommers (n 87) for a detailed overview of the history of the Urgenda saga.
94 NOS News, 20 December 2019, <https://nos.nl/artikel/2315589-afkeuring-bewondering-en-vragen-over-urgenda-vonnis-bij-de-politiek> accessed 25 October 2022.
95 Boogaard (n 92); my translation.
96 H. Wiegel, ‘Rechter moet niet zeggen wat de staat moet doen’ NRC Handelsblad (1 July 2015); my translation.
97 F. Jensma, ‘En dit is de rechter die het vonnis wees. Hans Hofhuis: opinieleider en zeer ervaren’ NRC Handelsblad (26 June 2015); F. Jensma, ‘Over een fout vonnis moet je niet blijven tobben. Interview Hans Hofhuis’ NRC Handsblad (16 September 2016).
98 Burgers (n 86) 26.
99 ibid 163-64.
100 D.R. Boyd, The Rights of Nature: A Legal Revolution That Could Save the World (Ingram Publisher Services 2017).
101 See also Davies and Henderson in this special issue.
102 Regarding animals, see e.g. J. Vink, The Open Society and Its Animals (Palgrave Macmillan 2020).
103 Mommers (n 87).
104 Advocatendblad, 8 November 2017, <https://www.advocatenblad.nl/2017/11/08/klacht-doliveira-hoge-raad/> accessed 25 October 2022.
105 Setzer and Higham (n 81) 4.
106 Open Society Justice Initiative, Strategic Litigation Impacts: Insights from Global Experience (Open Society Foundations 2018), 25; H. Duffy, Strategic Human Rights Litigation: Understanding and Maximising Impact (Hart Publishing 2018); A. Sarat and S.A. Scheingold (eds.), Cause Lawyers and Social Movements (Stanford University Press 2006).
107 See also the websites of NGOs: https://trialinternational.org/topics-post/strategic-litigation/; https://www.justiceinitiative.org/tools/strategic-litigation.
108 Open Society Justice Initiative (n 106) 25.
109 Burgers (n 86) 28-31.
110 P. Domingo and T. O’Neil, The Politics of Legal Empowerment: Legal Mobilisation Strategies and Implications for Development (Overseas Development Institute 2014) 4.
111 Open Society Justice Initiative (n 106), 42.
112 See Judges for Judges (n 2).
113 clintel.org.
115 See also above, section 2.1.