In the Court of Public Opinion: Judicial Supremacy v. The Rule of Law. Reply to Conor Geary's review of 'Transnational Networks and Elite Self-Empowerment: The Making of the Judiciary in Contemporary Europe and Beyond' by Cristina E. Parau (OUP, 2018)
16 Pages Posted: 2 Aug 2021 Last revised: 4 Aug 2021
Date Written: July 30, 2021
This is a brief essay in reply to a review of my monograph, "Transnational Networks and Elite Self-Empowerment: The Making of the Judiciary in Contemporary Europe and Beyond" (OUP 2019) by LSE Human Rights Prof. Conor Gearty. Prof. Gearty’s review "The Courts in Europe Today: Subverting or Saving Democracy?" was recently published in European Constitutional Law Review 16 (2021), https://cup.org/2KcqRKi. The research underlying the monograph was sponsored by the British Academy, to whom I am very grateful. I am equally grateful to Prof. Gearty for reviewing my monograph at such length. Enviably equipped with the perspective of a human rights lawyer, Gearty draws on his first-hand observations to incisively critique my argument and make the opposite case with passion. My rebuttal will have to rise to the challenge of being commensurate in depth and scrutiny, which I have endeavoured to do below, all in the pursuit of truth, which we both seek. May an emerging synthesis be found by readers which is higher than each of our individual contributions.
I shall address Prof. Gearty’s artful combination of praise and blame in hopes that our exchange may advance our understanding of latent questions of Judiciary institutions and their design (and designers) that are not getting the consideration that events urge.
Keywords: rule of law, judiciary, judicial activism, judicial supremacy, democracy, elites
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation