Subject
Justice, Administration of -- France Books
Best books
Émile Faguet
... Et l'horreur des responsabilités (suite au Culte de l'incompétence)
"... Et l''horreur des responsabilités (suite au Culte de l''incompétence)" by Faguet is a political and legal essay written in the early 20th century. It contends that modern French institutions are consciously arranged to evade responsibility, with special emphasis on how the judiciary and public life shift blame onto laws, superiors, and the state. The work continues the author’s broader critique of civic incompetence by examining law, professions, family, and social customs through a sharp, polemical lens. The opening of the treatise argues that the French strive to be irresponsible and first targets legal ideas and customs. It claims that, since the Revolution, judges are reduced to automatic applicators of statutes, shedding moral responsibility, unlike the old French magistrates, English judges, or Roman praetors who shaped law and felt its burdens. Beccaria’s case for strict textualism is invoked to show how fear of “the spirit of the law” also shelters judges from blame. The author defends the Ancien Régime’s sale of judicial offices (following Montesquieu and La Beaumelle against Voltaire) as a paradoxical guarantee of independence, and argues the Revolution annexed justice to the executive, making government the true judge. He then illustrates politicized judging: the Paris court’s condemnation of Cardinal Luçon, allegedly based on ministry assurances and a distorted quotation, and the 1906 Court of Cassation in the Dreyfus affair, said to have inverted a legal article to avoid a new court-martial—thus appeasing power while keeping the case unresolved. The narrative widens to show executive and parliamentary encroachment, the sway of deputies and local “governments,” and echoes of Guizot and Poincaré on the danger of politics in the courts. In sum, the beginning portrays a judiciary doubly shielded—by literalism and by obedience—leaving justice in the hands of an irresponsible authority.
Émile Faguet
"... és a felelősségtől való rettegés" : $b "A kontárság kultuszának" folytatása
"... és a felelősségtől való rettegés" : "A kontárság kultuszának" folytatása by Émile Faguet is a political and legal essay written in the early 20th century. It argues that a cultural fear of responsibility has shaped French institutions since the Revolution, encouraging mechanical legality, bureaucratic dependence, and moral evasion. Building on his earlier critique of incompetence, Faguet probes how legal doctrines and administrative structures foster unaccountable judges and a subservient judiciary. The opening of the work stakes a bold thesis: modern France strives to make decision-makers irresponsible, especially in law. Faguet contrasts judges who rigidly apply statutes (thereby avoiding moral judgment) with the older, precedent-shaping English judges and the Roman praetors who accepted real responsibility. He revisits Montesquieu versus Voltaire on the venality of offices, arguing that hereditary or purchased judicial posts once secured independence from the executive, whereas the Revolution tethered courts to the government, producing a double irresponsibility (strict textualism plus political dependence). To illustrate, he dissects a case against Cardinal Luçon about mixed public schools, accusing the court of trusting ministerial assurances, neglecting factual inquiry, and even twisting a legal opinion. He then analyzes the Dreyfus affair’s cassation ruling, claiming the court subtly inverted a procedural article to avoid remand, thereby serving state convenience while leaving the affair morally unresolved. The section closes by hinting at ministerial influence behind such outcomes, underscoring the book’s core theme: institutions engineered to evade accountability.
Recently surfaced classics