en pl
en pl

Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia nad Prawem

Show issue
Volume 14 
Issue 4

‘Improve the Law’ as a Judicial Duty on the Borderlines of Free Speech: Judges as Responsible Epistemic Agents

Gülriz Uygur
Ankara University Law School

Fatma Gürgey
MEF University Law School, Istanbul

14 (4) Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia nad Prawem

DOI 10.7206/kp.2080-1084.556

Article contents

Abstract

This paper discusses judicial duty of improving the law on epistemic grounds and claims in that regarding this obligation, it is possible to give a place to free speech from an epistemic point of view. As a requirement of having epistemic agency, judges like other human beings have epistemological responsibility. Different from the others’ responsibility, judges’ responsibility is connected to their duty of improving the law, which is required by their job as well as the idea of the rule of law and judicial professional principles. Judges should improve the law’s capacity to guide the conduct of its citizens, who are obligated to obey the law. Improving the law also improves the delivery of justice. The ways of legal interpretation and justification are important to improve it. While applying the law, judges can find the law unclear or they may encounter some norm conflicts. In these cases, they
should resolve them to keep the law ‘legally in good shape’, which should meet epistemological requirements. When fulfilling this obligation, judicial free speech on epistemic grounds should not be limited.

References

  1. Cerovac I., John Stuart Mill and Epistemic Democracy, Lanham, MD 2022. [Google Scholar]
  2. Dyzenhaus D., The Very Idea of a Judge, “University of Toronto Law Journal” 2010, 60(1), pp. 61–80. [Google Scholar]
  3. Dworkin R., Taking Rights Seriously, Harvard University Press 1978. [Google Scholar]
  4. Eckert L.M., Free Speech Law and the Pornography Debate: A Gender-Based Approach to Regulating Inegalitarian Pornography, London 2020. [Google Scholar]
  5. Feteris E.T., Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation: A Survey of Theories on the Justification of Judicial Decisions, 2nd ed., Springer 2017. [Google Scholar]
  6. Glass A., The Vice of Judicial Activism, [in:] T. Campbell, J. Goldsworthy (eds.), Judicial Power, Democracy and Legal Positivism, Routledge 2016, pp. 355–370. [Google Scholar]
  7. Hart H.L.A., The Concept of Law, Oxford 1994. [Google Scholar]
  8. Karpati A., Dorner H., Developing Epistemic Agencies of Teacher Trainnes: Using the Mentored Innovation Model, A. Moen, A.I. Mørch, S. Paavola (eds.), Collaborative Knowledge Creation: [Google Scholar]
  9. Practices, Tools, Concepts, Rotterdam 2012. [Google Scholar]
  10. Kuçuradi İ., Etik, Ankara 1999. [Google Scholar]
  11. Kuçuradi İ., Ahlak, etik ve etikler, Ankara 2019. [Google Scholar]
  12. MacCormick N., H.L.A. Hart, Stanford University Press 2008. [Google Scholar]
  13. Medina J., The Epistemology of Resistance: Gender and Racial Oppression, Epistemic Injustice, and Resistant Imaginations, Oxford 2013. [Google Scholar]
  14. Mill J.S., On Liberty and Other Writings, ed. S. Collini, Cambridge 1989 [Google Scholar]
  15. Smith L., The Right to Press Freedom of Expression vs the Rights of Marginalised Groups: An Answer Grounded in Personhood Rights, [in:] M. Garcia-Godinez, R. Mellin, R. Tuomela (eds.), [Google Scholar]
  16. Social Ontology, Normativity and Law, Berlin 2020. [Google Scholar]
  17. Soper E.P., Legal Theory and the Obligation of a Judge: The Hart/Dworkin Dispute, “Michigan Law Review” 1977, 75(3), pp. 473–519. [Google Scholar]
  18. Uygur G., The Job of the Judge in the Crisis Times (in the Context of Silenced Groups), [in:] R. Hauser, M. Zirk-Sadowski, B. Wojciechowski (eds.), The Common European Constitutional Culture, Frankfurt 2016. [Google Scholar]
  19. Young I.M., Responsibility for Justice, Oxford 2011. [Google Scholar]

Full metadata record

Cite this record

APA style

Uygur, Gülriz & Gürgey, Fatma İrem Çaglar (2022). ‘Improve the Law’ as a Judicial Duty on the Borderlines of Free Speech: Judges as Responsible Epistemic Agents . (2022). ‘Improve the Law’ as a Judicial Duty on the Borderlines of Free Speech: Judges as Responsible Epistemic Agents . Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia Nad Prawem, 14(4). https://doi.org/10.7206/kp.2080-1084.556

MLA style

Uygur, Gülriz and Gürgey, Fatma İrem Çaglar. “‘Improve The Law’ As A Judicial Duty On The Borderlines Of Free Speech: Judges As Responsible Epistemic Agents ”. Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia Nad Prawem, vol. 14, no. 4, 2022.

Chicago style

Uygur, Gülriz and Gürgey, Fatma İrem Çaglar. “‘Improve The Law’ As A Judicial Duty On The Borderlines Of Free Speech: Judges As Responsible Epistemic Agents ”. Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia Nad Prawem, Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia nad Prawem, 14, no. 4 (2022). doi:10.7206/kp.2080-1084.556.

Copyright info

copyright info

CC-BY

People also read: