Suchergebnisse

This book addresses recent changes in Central and Eastern Europe in order to critically consider the impact of illiberal conservatism on constitutionalism. Right-wing populism and the illiberal constitutionalism of Central and Eastern Europe have challenged both the dominant views of legal scholars and those elements of the legal mainstream that appeared to be firmly entrenched and resistant to change. But, as this book demonstrates, in practical terms, the anti-liberal right has made use of critical methods that were originally conceived as tools for use in emancipatory and left-wing action, absorbing and utilizing a great many of the ideas associated with critical jurisprudential thought. In short, this book maintains, conservative illiberalism has taken over the role that postmodernism could have played: the role of a jester discourse' relativizing the certainties and finality of liberal democracy. As the book argues, however, what this connection reveals is the necessity of a legal and political response that does not simply and hysterically reaffirm the former liberal hegemony. Rather, drawing on Foucault and post-Marxism, it articulates a concept of agonistic democracy that aims to shift the center of gravity in constitutional discourse away from any naive liberal faith in the nonpolitical. This book will appeal to constitutional lawyers, as well as to legal and political theorists with interests in contemporary populism and liberal thought.

"This book addresses recent changes in Central and Eastern Europe in order to critically consider the impact of illiberal conservatism on constitutionalism. Right-wing populism and the illiberal constitutionalism of Central and Eastern Europe has challenged both the dominant views of legal scholars and those elements of the legal mainstream that appeared to be firmly entrenched and resistant to change. But, as this book demonstrates, in practical terms, the anti-liberal right has made use of critical methods that were originally conceived as tools for use in emancipatory and left-wing action, absorbing and utilizing a great many of the ideas associated with critical jurisprudential thought. In short, this book maintains, conservative illiberalism has taken over the role that postmodernism could have played: the role of a 'jester discourse' relativizing the certainties and finality of liberal democracy. As the book argues, however what this connection reveals is the necessity of a legal and political response that does not simply, and hysterically, reaffirm the former liberal hegemony. Rather, drawing on Foucault and post-Marxism, it articulates a concept of agonistic democracy that aims to shift the center of gravity in constitutional discourse away from any naïve liberal faith in the nonpolitical. This book will appeal to constitutional lawyers, as well as to legal and political theorists with interests in contemporary populism and liberal thought"--

In recent years, a crisis of demoliberal hegemony has emerged in many countries of the broadly understood West. The considerations in this article focus primarily on the juridical dimension of the crisis of liberal democracy. The key issue is genealogy, history, and the process of decomposing faith in the apolitical nature of the discursive rules of jurisprudence. The assumption of the objectivity of these rules and their exceptional status is considered an important object of attack by those contemporary opponents of the ancien regime who focus on legal issues. Such a situation allows us to compare the present decline of demoliberal hegemony to the first significant crisis of liberal theoretical and practical constructions, symbolically exemplified by the dispute between Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt in the sphere of German legal culture. In our contemporary discourse questioning the assumptions of the demoliberal hegemonic formation, the themes undertaken by Schmitt constitute an important theoretical element. Undoubtedly, Kelsen's way of thinking is strongly present in the discourse of defenders of the status quo. Of course, historical changes within the episteme had an impact on the use of old arguments. In other words, they are "different Schmitt" and "different Kelsen". In this work, both names do not serve as an introduction to the objectivized exegesis of thinkers' views. They are only symbols, or rather metaphors, of certain positions in a dispute that can be seen diachronically.The final part of the article is devoted to an attempt to formulate certain program comments and fairly general postulates of such a reform of the rules of jurisprudence in the Polish context, which will allow to strengthen the chance for a convincing legitimization of its products. The article is written from the perspective of a critical theory of law, which is associated with avoiding legal metaphysics and foundationalism. The author assumes that gaining hegemony by a given set of discursive rules is the product of many contingent factors. In other words, individuals and groups (epistemic communities) are able to accept and internalize different knowledge and different sets of rules for their production. Nevertheless, a rather cautious assumption was made in the text that the most effective key to transforming the discourse is learning what has been recognized as flaws in its existing rules, i.e., what has been attacked. Future scenarios are not predictable, nevertheless the author outlines three directions of potential transformations of jurisprudence discourses, which are the most probable.

CONSTITUTIONALISM AND THE "REVENGE OF POSTMODERNISM"The main purpose of this article is to discuss the current situation of constitutional discourse as aresult of "Revenge of postmodernism". This "Revenge" shows itself in taking over the methods of the leftist critique of democratic institutions by the radical right. This "Barbarization" of subtle methods of left-wing criticism leads to far-reaching consequences unforeseen by its founding fathers — Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida or Judith Butler. The author, using various theories formulated by Chantal Mouffe, Ernesto Laclau and Artur Kozak, seeks to explain this phenomenon and to show its implications for the future evolution of the constitutional discourse.

HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE "DEATH OF GOD"The "death of God" — a Nietzschean metaphor — is still considered as an excellent diagnosis of the condition of modern societies deprived of metaphysical ground. The author uses this metaphor to illustrate the genealogy and the present of conservative criticism of human rights. This criticism is based on the allegation that the ideology of human rights is responsible for the breakdown of the "social metaphysics" of the West. The author attempts to show the dangerous potential of conservative criticism of human rights. In the following part of his paper the author refers to the phenomenon of "the end of grand narratives" treated as another dimension of the "death of God" and formulates the question of possible solutions to the problem of justification of human rights in postmodern conditions.

CONSTITUTION — SYSTEM — HEGEMONY. ON THE "ANTI-POLITICAL" FUNCTION OF SYSTEMIC ARGUMENTS IN CONSTITUTIONAL JURISPRUDENCEThe main purpose of this paper is to examine the function of arguments based on so called systemic interpretation of law in constitutional jurisprudence, using methods and tools offered by the post-analytical, critical philosophy in the field of legal theory. The author notes that constitutional courts apply the systemic argumentation to hide real, political motives of their decisions. The author tries to diagnose the potential impact of this phenomenon on the functioning of liberal democracy, refering to theories developed by C. Lefort, Ch. Mouffe, E. Laclau and J. Habermas. In the Author's opinion the constitutional activism, which has been masked by the systemic interpretation, is based on the liberal utopia of creation of law without "the political". The rise of populist political forces in Europe can be considered as reaction to the constitutional activism and the crisis of the "liberal dream".

"This book addresses the variety of right-wing illiberal populism which has emerged in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). Against the backdrop of weak institutional traditions, frequent and profound transformations, and deep historical traumas affecting the law, politics, economy and society in the region, the book critically examines the entanglements of legality in the region's transformation from state socialism to neoliberalism and Western-style democracy. Drawing on critical legal theory, as well as legal history, legal theory, sociology of law, history of ideas, anthropology of law, comparative law, and constitutional theory, the book goes beyond conventional analyses to offer an in-depth account of this important contemporary phenomenon. This book will be of interest to legal researchers, especially of a critical or socio-legal perspective, political scientists, sociologists and (legal) historians, as well as policy makers seeking to understand the regional specificity and deeper roots of Central and Eastern European illiberal populism"--