Please note that the disputation will be streamed and some of the seats behind the candidate and the opponents will be visible for those who are watching.
Participate at the disputation here
See record of the trial lecture here
Adjudication committee
- Professor Katja Franko. University of Oslo (leader)
- Professor Jim Moliterno, Washington and Lee University (1. opponent)
- Professor Terje Einarsen, University of Bergen (2. opponent)
Chair of defence
Dean Ragnhild Hennum
Supervisors
- Professor Hans Petter Graver
- Professor Mirosław Wyrzykowski
Summary
Why Do We Need Courts and Judges?
Judicial Independence: Our Shield from the State
Courts and judges are our problem-solvers, arbitrating disputes and upholding laws. Beyond this, judges act as our protectors from potential state overreaches. Despite being part of the 'third branch' of government, their critical task is to protect us from unjust actions carried out by other state institutions. To champion this effectively, a judge's independence from the state is crucial. But, what happens when such judicial independence is jeopardised? What if politicians aim to exert dominance over judges? Or when valiant judges, in their stand against attack on independence, face pressure, intimidation, or reprisals?
The Right and Duty of Judicial Resistance
These pressing concerns are at the heart of the doctoral project. In a series of five articles, I introduce the concept of 'judicial resistance'. Judges, I argue, have both the right and the duty to oppose unlawful encroachments on their independence. My analysis delves into the different resistance strategies judges use - collectively or individually, in-court and out-of-court. The spectrum of resistance methods is broad, from issuing judgements in opposition to government pressures, speaking out about irregularities, attending protests, to even boycotting certain legal procedures. Historically, judges were restrained from participating actively in public discourse or political commentary, given their non-political stature. Yet, is such restraint justified when their very autonomy, a guarantee of the protection of our rights and freedoms, is under siege?
Citizen Support: A Pillar of Justice
From 2015-2023, Polish judges emerged as steadfast defenders of judicial independence and the rule of law. Their resistance has been unique in its intensity and duration, with their collaborative efforts alongside Civil Society Organizations and legal profession. But what about us, the public? Do we have a role in backing our judges when they're under threat? The Polish scenario reveals how civil society groups bolstered the rule of law, bridging the gap between judges and the public, and defending shared values.
Is there a need for a global standard?
While rooted in Poland's experience, this research has global implications. From Hungary to the US during the Trump era, and more recently in Israel, judicial independence is being tested.
But also in other regions, like Scandinavia, where judicial independence is presumed, can we say with certainty that judges will face challenges when under pressure? Is there enough vigilance from the public, academic circles, civil entities and the media in monitoring these events and the broader judicial realm? With democracy and the rule of law in decline, it's essential to explore how these values can be defended, and the pivotal role judges play in this struggle. This research is an exploration of these complex issues and more.