Disagreement on a Bench: An Empirical Analysis of Dissent at the Czech Constitutional Court
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62355/ejels.23797Keywords:
courts, dissents, judicial behavior, political science, regression analysisAbstract
This article examines the factors influencing dissenting opinions by judges at the Czech Constitutional Court (“CCC”). We build on the disagreement-identification model and the strategic accounts of dissenting behavior. Our findings do not support the existence of a strong norm of consensus operating at the CCC. However, the complexity of a case, measured by the number of CCC caselaw citations involved, is positively correlated with the probability of a dissenting opinion. Similarly, cases concerning controversial topics are more likely to generate dissents. A placebo test strengthens this finding by demonstrating that randomly chosen, non-controversial topics have minimal impact on dissenting behavior. The effect of voting blocs in the plenary proceedings seems to carry over to the 3-member chamber proceedings. The results also reveal that judges make strategic considerations. When facing a high workload, judges are less likely to write separate opinions, suggesting they prioritize workload management. Lastly, CCC judges do not seem to take into account collegiality costs.
References
Arel-Bundock, Vincent, Noah Greifer, and Andrew Heiss. “How to Intepret Statistical Models Using Marginaleffects for R and Python.” Journal of Statistical Software.
Bobek, Michal, Pavel Molek, and Vojtěch Šimíček. 2009. Komunistické Právo v Československu : Kapitoly z dějin Bezpráví. Brno: Masarykova univerzita Brno, Mezinárodní politologický ústav.
Brekke, Stein Arne, Daniel Naurin, Urška Šadl, and Lucía López-Zurita. 2023. “That’s an Order! How the Quest for Efficiency Is Transforming Judicial Cooperation in Europe.” JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 61 (1): 58–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13346. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13346
Bricker, Benjamin. 2017. “Breaking the Principle of Secrecy: An Examination of Judicial Dissent in the European Constitutional Courts.” Law & Policy 39 (2): 170–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12072. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12072
Calderia, Gregory A., and Christopher J. W. Zorn. 1998. “Of Time and Consensual Norms in the Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science 42 (3): 874–902. https://doi.org/10.2307/2991733. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2991733
Chmel, Jan. 2017. “Zpravodajové a Senáty: Vliv Složení Senátu Na Rozhodování Ústavního Soudu České Republiky o Ústavních Stížnostech.” Časopis Pro Právní vědu a Praxi 25 (4): 739. https://doi.org/10.5817/CPVP2017-4-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5817/CPVP2017-4-9
Chmel, Jan. 2021. Co Ovlivňuje Ústavní Soud a Jeho Soudce? /. Vydání první. Teoretik (Leges).
Clark, Tom S., Benjamin G. Engst, and Jeffrey K. Staton. 2018. “Estimating the Effect of Leisure on Judicial Performance.” The Journal of Legal Studies 47 (2): 349–90. https://doi.org/10.1086/699150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/699150
Corley, Pamela C., Amy Steigerwalt, and Artemus Ward. 2013. The Puzzle of Unanimity: Consensus on the United States Supreme Court. Redwood City: Stanford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11126/stanford/9780804784726.001.0001
Engel, Christoph, and Keren Weinshall. 2020. “Manna from Heaven for Judges: Judges’ Reaction to a Quasi-Random Reduction in Caseload.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 17 (4): 722–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12265. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12265
Epstein, Lee, and Jack Knight. 2000. “Toward a Strategic Revolution in Judicial Politics: A Look Back, A Look Ahead.” Political Research Quarterly 53 (3): 625–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290005300309. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290005300309
Epstein, Lee, William M. Landes, and Richard A. Posner. 2011. “Why (and When) Judges Dissent: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis.” Journal of Legal Analysis 3 (1): 101–37. https://doi.org/10.1093/jla/3.1.101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jla/3.1.101
Epstein, Lee, and Jeffrey A. Segal. 2000. “Measuring Issue Salience.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (1): 66–83. https://doi.org/10.2307/2669293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2669293
Garoupa, Nuno, and Peter Grajzl. 2020. “Spurred by Legal Tradition or Contextual Politics? Lessons about Judicial Dissent from Slovenia and Croatia.” International Review of Law and Economics 63 (September): 105912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2020.105912. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2020.105912
Garoupa, Nuno, Laura Salamero-Teixidó, and Adrián Segura. 2022. “Disagreeing in Private or Dissenting in Public: An Empirical Exploration of Possible Motivations.” European Journal of Law and Economics 53 (2): 147–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-021-09713-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-021-09713-6
Giesselmann, Marco, and Alexander W. Schmidt-Catran. 2022. “Interactions in Fixed Effects Regression Models.” Sociological Methods & Research 51 (3): 1100–1127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124120914934. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124120914934
Hanretty, Chris. 2012. “Dissent in Iberia: The Ideal Points of Justices on the Spanish and Portuguese Constitutional Tribunals.” European Journal of Political Research 51 (5): 671–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2012.02056.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2012.02056.x
Hanretty, Chris. 2013. “The Decisions and Ideal Points of British Law Lords.” British Journal of Political Science 43 (3): 703–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123412000270. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123412000270
Hanretty, Chris. 2015. “Judicial Disagreement Need Not Be Political: Dissent on the Estonian Supreme Court.” Europe-Asia Studies 67 (6): 970–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2015.1054260. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2015.1054260
Hartman, Erin, and F. Daniel Hidalgo. 2018. “An Equivalence Approach to Balance and Placebo Tests.” American Journal of Political Science 62 (4): 1000–1013. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12387. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12387
Havelková, Barbara. 2017. Gender Equality in Law: Uncovering the Legacies of Czech State Socialism. Oxford ; Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing.
Hořeňovský, Jan, and Jan Chmel. 2015. “The Process of making the Constitutional Court Judgements.” Časopis pro právní vědu a praxi 23 (3): 302–11.
Kelemen, Katalin. 2017. Judicial Dissent in European Constitutional Courts: A Comparative and Legal Perspective. Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315590769
Kosař, David, and Ladislav Vyhnánek. 2020. “The Constitutional Court of Czechia.” In The Max Planck Handbooks in European Public Law: Volume III: Constitutional Adjudication: Institutions, edited by Armin von Bogdandy, Peter Huber, and Christoph Grabenwarter, 0. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198726418.003.0004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198726418.003.0004
Landa, Dimitri, and Jeffrey R. Lax. 2007/2008. “Disagreements on Collegial Courts: A Case-Space Approach.” University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 10 (2007/2008): 305.
Lax, Jeffrey R. 2011. “The New Judicial Politics of Legal Doctrine.” Annual Review of Political Science 14 (1): 131–57. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.042108.134842. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.042108.134842
Martin, Andrew D., and Kevin M. Quinn. 2002. “Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999.” Political Analysis 10 (2): 134–53. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/10.2.134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/10.2.134
Narayan, Paresh Kumar, and Russell Smyth. 2005. “The Consensual Norm on the High Court of Australia: 1904-2001.” International Political Science Review 26 (2): 147–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512105050379. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512105050379
Paulík, Štěpán. 2024. “The Czech Constitutional Court Database.” Journal of Law and Courts Forthcoming.
Radvan, Michal, and Jan Neckář. 2018. “Expropriation from the Wider Perspective in the Czech Republic.” In Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Issues in Expropriation. Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315749167-4
Segal, Jeffrey A., Lee Epstein, Charles M. Cameron, and Harold J. Spaeth. 1995. “Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices Revisited.” The Journal of Politics 57 (3): 812–23. https://doi.org/10.2307/2960194. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2960194
Šipulová, Katarína. 2018. “The Czech Constitutional Court: Far Away from Political Influence.” In Constitutional Politics and the Judiciary. Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429467097-3
Smekal, Hubert, Jaroslav Benák, Monika Hanych, Ladislav Vyhnánek, and Štěpán Janků. 2021. Mimoprávní Vlivy Na Rozhodování Českého Ústavního Soudu: Brno: Masaryk University Press. https://doi.org/10.5817/CZ.MUNI.M210-9884-2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5817/CZ.MUNI.M210-9884-2021
Songer, Donald R., John Szmer, and Susan W. Johnson. 2011. “Explaining Dissent on the Supreme Court of Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue Canadienne de Science Politique 44 (2): 389–409. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423911000151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423911000151
Spriggs, James F., and Thomas G. Hansford. 2001. “Explaining the Overruling of U.S. Supreme Court Precedent.” The Journal of Politics 63 (4): 1091–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/00223816.00102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-3816.00102
Varol, Ozan O., Lucia Dalla Pellegrina, and Nuno Garoupa. 2017. “An Empirical Analysis of Judicial Transformation in Turkey.” The American Journal of Comparative Law 65 (1): 187– 216. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avx013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avx013
Vartazaryan, Gor. 2022. “Sít’ová Analy`za Disentujících Ústavních Soudců.” Pravnik, no. 12.
Vartazaryan, Gor, and Štěpán Paulík. 2024. “’I Have Spoken and Saved My Soul’: A Qualitative Analysis of Dissenting Behavior of Czech Constitutional Judges”. Working Paper. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.26831.09124.
Wittig, Caroline. 2016. The Occurrence of Separate Opinions at the Federal Constitutional Court. Logos Verlag Berlin. https://doi.org/10.30819/4411.
Wooldridge, Jeffrey M. 2019. Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach. Cengage Learning.
Downloads
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Štěpán Paulík, Gor Vartazaryan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
