A large body of research supports the procedural justice hypothesis that quality of treatment matters more than outcomes for institutional legitimacy. How fairness matters across legal institutions and geographic settings remains an open question, however. This article uses a survey of criminal defendants to test the factors associated with perceived legitimacy of courts in Poland, a country whose judiciary is currently subject to intense political contestation. The findings confirm the primacy of procedural justice, while also illustrating the influence of instrumental performance factors such as time and court organization. This suggests that in contexts of political transition with disputed legal institutions, citizens' contact with procedurally fair, operationally efficient institutions can support the legitimacy of authorities and strengthen the rule of law. After the sentence, someone always loses and is unhappy. Sometimes, indeed, both parties are unhappy, because even those who won did not win as much as they wanted.
Since 1989, cultural expertise has emerged as a crucial factor in navigating Poland's communist past. The use of cultural expertise provided by historians was institutionalized in 1999, when the Institute of National Remembrance was created and charged with prosecuting Nazi and communist crimes, as well as assisting with the belated decommunization. Expert historians are requested by courts and other institutions to provide opinions in cases ranging from alleged collaboration with communist secret services, withdrawal of veteran status bestowed to soldiers of communist military units fighting the Polish resistance movement, awarding compensation to victims of German concentration and labour camps, to changing names of places named after prominent Party activists. Using this expertise requires the courts to understand the intricacies of recent Polish history, such as the operational methodology and archival practices of communist secret services, or the complex interplay of motives to collaborate (or not) with foreign oppressors. In this paper, the new salience of historical expertise for the Polish courts is analysed within the framework of Honneth's (1995) ‘struggle for recognition’ and Haldemann's (2008) work on the symbolic role of courts in transitional justice contexts.
Based on a systematic analysis of three databases of court decisions and a comprehensive overview of out-of-court use of cultural expertise in dispute resolution across various institutional contexts, this article investigates how Polish authorities tackle emerging issues of cultural diversity. Although Poland remains one of the European Union’s (EU) most ethnically and culturally homogeneous countries, increased immigration and internal pluralism bring new challenges for the courts and other public institutions involved in dispute resolution. Increasingly, generic references and commonsense understandings are replaced by more precise indications of sources, uses of academic sources or reports by non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and appointment of relevant experts. On the other hand, judges still tend to attempt their own interpretations and usually reject motions to instruct social scientists as expert witnesses, choosing the approach once aptly described as “strategic ignorance.”2 Thus, in this article, I look at how Polish courts justify instruction (or rejection of motions to instruct) social scientists as expert witnesses and where they draw the line between common sense and expert interpretations of culture. I also survey the rising demand for cultural expertise in dispute settlement in immigration services, detention centers, the military, and education.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.