Towards Greater Freedom of Expression for Judges. The Rejection of a Culture of Judicial Silence and Its Benefits for Liberal Democracy*

Abstract

The current study asserts that the rejection of a culture of judicial silence is beneficial to the architecture of liberal democracy, as judicial expression outside a courtroom assists in maintaining a balance between its components. On the one hand, this can create defence mechanisms against the alienation of the law from society (which appropriately appreciates the democratic component), while on the other, it aids in the actualization of the constitutionally determined role of the judiciary within the political system (safeguarding the liberal element). The discussion, which is essentially based on an analysis of international soft law, commences by examining two areas pertaining to judicial expression outside a courtroom: public discussion on the law and generally understood social life involvement. Subsequently, the limits of judges’ expression during such activities are analysed, and three proposals for their definition are put forward. As a next step, the paper highlights the diversity of judges as relevant to the problem at hand. The work concludes by outlining its findings, which also include the potential risks associated with the proposed project.