STARE DECISIS IN CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTICE

Abstract

The principle (doctrine) of stare decisis, a cornerstone of the common law tradition, requires courts to adhere to precedents to ensure legal stability and predictability. This principle, when applied in constitutional proceedings, presents a complex relationship between the adherence to judicial precedents (historical court decisions) and the dynamic nature of constitutional interpretation. In this article, the authors attempt to examine the philosophical underpinnings and practical implications of stare decisis in constitutional proceedings, focusing primarily on its principles and inherent contradictions, especially in times of legal and social transformation.

Through a historical overview of stare decisis, the authors trace its evolution from early common law systems to the modern application by courts with constitutional jurisdiction in their national legal systems. Particular attention is paid to the philosophical underpinnings of the doctrine, including arguments in favour of legal continuity, efficiency of the judicial system and fair treatment of litigants. 

The author examines the key principles of stare decisis, including the distinction between vertical and horizontal stare decisis, the criteria for overruling a precedent and the role of superprecedents. The article highlights the normative and interpretive challenges that arise from the perception of precedents as unfair or outdated. The tension between judicial activism and restraint is analysed. The author emphasises the way in which courts strike a balance between fidelity to past decisions and the need to adapt judicial interpretation to current contemporary values.

The contradictions of stare decisis in the context of judicial proceedings, including the transitional period (characterised by periods of legal and political instability), pose unique challenges for its application, and therefore require a rethinking of the established approaches. The article examines landmark cases and case law in selected countries of the Anglo-Saxon family of legal systems, which illustrate how courts reconcile the need for legal certainty with the requirements of transformative justice and institutional legitimacy. 

Through a theoretical and empirical study, this article contributes to the debate on the role of stare decisis in constitutional jurisdiction. It argues that, while the doctrine remains a vital element of jurisprudence, its application should be ‘sensitive’ to the context, allowing for principled deviations in the face of compelling normative imperatives. The conclusions underline the need for a balanced approach that respects legal continuity while taking into account the transformative potential of constitutional justice, especially in times of significant social change.

It is emphasised that the effects of stare decisis in constitutional proceedings are multifaceted, encompassing both a stabilising impact and the potential to perpetuate legal inflexibility. The authors raise the issue of reflexive and adaptive application of the doctrine, acknowledging the importance of precedent for maintaining judicial consistency while recognizing the dynamic nature of constitutional law, which must respond to the changing needs of society.