Advertisement

Watchfulness as an Implication of Agapic Casuistry

  • Alexander Nikolaevich Shytov
Part of the Law and Philosophy Library book series (LAPS, volume 54)

Abstract

The concept of Christian love consists not only in the description of moral experience, but also has the advantage providing practical recommendations. The concept of conscience was developed by Christians not for the sake of pure academic interest, but it was born in the pangs of practising virtue. The concept is a result of reflection on this practice. John of Damascus described conscience as a power fighting against the irrational part of soul.1 The Christian vision of conscience reflects all the complexities and struggles which are inherent part of moral life of the human being. The judges are human, and as such they are also affected by the struggle to be moral. Every judge has irrational desires which may affect the outcome of the judicial process. The task of agapic casuistry is to make the judges more aware of their presence in order to neutralise their affect on judicial decisions in the process of passing an impartial sympathy judgement.

Keywords

Legal Rule Legal Reasoning Moral Intuition Judicial Decision Legal Principle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Orthodox Faith. 4. 22. in: John of Damascus. Writings. — Transl. by F. Clase. — Washington: The Catholic University of America Press. 1958. — P. 165.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Braun K. Justice and the Law of Love. — London: George Allen, 1950. — P. 8.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Greenawalt K. Law and Objectivity. — Oxford University Press, 1992. — P. 127.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologiae. I–II. 6. 8.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Griffith J.A.G. The Politics of the Judiciary. — London: Fontana Press, 1997. — P.57.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    ibid., p. 336.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Devlin P. ‘Judges, Government and Politics’. in: Modern Law Review. 41 [1978] — P. 507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    Pannick D. Judges. — Oxford University Press, 1987. — P. 39.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    See the recent cases where the narrow concept of bias is prominent: R. v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate and Others. — ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 2). — [1999] 1 All E.R. 577; Locabail (UK) Ltd. v. Bayfield Properties Ltd. [2000] 1 All E.R. 65.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. v. Gough. [1993]. A.C. 646.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    ibid., Lord Goff of Chieveley at 660.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. v. Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate and others. — ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 2). [1999] 1 All E.R. 577.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    See: Jones T. ‘Judicial Bias and Disqualification in the Pinochet Case’. in: Public Law. Autumn, 1999. — pp. 391–399.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Locabail (UK) Ltd. v. Bayfield Properties Ltd. [2000] 1 All E.R. 65. — At 75, 76, 86.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ibid. at 77.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Flick G.A. Natural Justice. — Sydney: Butterworth, 1984. — P. 158.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Frankfurter F. Of Law and Men. — N.Y.: Harcourt Brace, 1956. — P. 40.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cited by: Pannick D. Judges. — Oxford University Press, 1987. — P. 45.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cardoso B. The Nature of the Judicial Process. — New Haven: Yale University Press, 1921. — P. 167.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Griffith J.A.G. The Politics of the Judiciary. — London: Fontana Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sachs A. Sexism and the Law. — Oxford: Martin Robertson, 1978.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Russel G. The Death Penalty and Racial Bias. — Westport, Con.: Greenwood, 1994.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Public Utility Commission v. Pollak. 343. U.S. 451. (1952). 466–7.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    The Philokalia. — Transl. by G. Palmer, Ph. Sherrard, K. Ware. — London: Faber: 1979.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    ibid., Vol. I. p. 162.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    ibid., p. 163.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Descartes R. Discourse on Method. — Transl. by F.E. Sutcliffe. — Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1968.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Marshall J. Descartes’s Moral theory. — Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998. — pp. 22–24.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Philokalia. — Vol. I, p. 128.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    The Art of Prayer. An Orthodox Anthology. — Compiled by Chariton of Valamo. — Transl. by E. Kadloukovskey. — London: Faber, 1966. — P. 182.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    1 Kings 3ff.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    1 Kings 3:5.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    ibid., 3:10.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    ibid., 4:29–33.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dworkin R. Law’s Empire. — Harvard University Press, 1986. — P. 239.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    1 Kings 3:16–28Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    ibid., 4:32. Proverbs 1:1.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    ibid., 8:34. (empasis added).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    ibid.,2:1.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    ibid.,2:1.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    ibid., 4:23.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    ibid., 3:7.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    ibid., 26:12.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    ibid., 1618Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    ibid., 18:12.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    ibid., 12:15; 14:12,15.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    ibid., 11:1.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    ibid., 14:17,29.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    ibid., 11:3.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    ibid., 12:18.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    ibid., 15:1,8.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    ibid., 16:32.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    ibid., 17:26.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    ibid., 18:5.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    ibid., 16:17.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    ibid., 3:27.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    ibid., 3:1.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Perez de Rada Cavanilles v. Spain. — Judgement of 28 October 1998. — European Court of Human Rights. RJD. 1988.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
  61. 61.
    Al-Mehdavi v. Secretary of State for the Home Department. [1989] 3 All E.R.(HL) 843.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    R. v. Diggenes, ex p Pahmani [1985] 1 All E.R. 1073.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Al-Mehdavi v. Secretary of State for the Home Department. [1989] 3 A1l E.R.(HL) at 849.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Public Utility Commission v. Pollak. 343. U.S. 451. (1952). 466–7.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Serjeant v. Dale. [1877] 2 Q.B.D. 558. — at p. 567.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    [1999] 1 All E.R. 577.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    ibid., at 593.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    For general discussion of the contemporary issues of natural justice, see: Craig P. P. Administrative Law. — London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1999. — Chapters 13 & 14.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Cited by Shetreet Sh. Judges on Trial. — Amsterdam: North-Holland Publ., 1976. — P. 296.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Remli v. France. — Judgement of 23 April 1996. — European Court of Human Rights. RJD 1996–II.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    See: Par 46 of the Decision.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Cane P. An Introduction to Administrative Law. — 3d ed. — Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. — P. 167.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Pannick D. Judges. — Oxford University Press, 1987. — P. 41.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Dworkin R. Law’s Empire. — Harvard University Press, 1986. — P. 15ff.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    ibid., p. 17.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    ibid., p. 225.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
  78. 78.
    MacCormick N. Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory. — Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1954. — P. 74.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Jacobs F., White R. The European Convention on Human Rights. — Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. — P. 125.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Nikolaevich Shytov
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of LawStavropol State UniversityStavropolRussia
  2. 2.Commercial Law and EthicsMae Jo UniversityChiang MaiThailand

Personalised recommendations