Theories of Judicial Decision-Making confronted the Functioning of Czech Courts

Theories of Judicial Decision-Making confronted the Functioning of Czech Courts Abstract Judicial decision-making in hard cases is not a rationalisation which legitimates a choice made based on non-legal grounds, but a relatively predictable, determined and just process which draws legitimacy from the rationality of legal thinking and is significantly influenced by the judge's effort to make the best decision possible considering his conception of law and general training. Based on this proposition the dissertation thesis explores the effect of the judge's conception of law and his judicial function on his legal argumentation and his decision-making in hard cases. The main concept the thesis thus being the judicial philosophy. The dissertation thesis firstly analyses the concept theoretically and subsequently tests the theory on real judicial practice. The hypothesis is that judges of apex courts have different judicial philosophies and that their opposing views on grounds of law and their judicial function exhibits itself in their decision-making in hard cases. The disagreement between judges may be characterised as reasonable disagreement. In situations of reasonable disagreement, the opposing parties are incapable of reaching a compromise despite perfectly sound and grounded positions and mutual effort..