Das Bundesverfassungsgericht im politischen System der BRD – ein unbekanntes Wesen?

Abstract

Zusammenfassung: dieser beitrag argumentiert, dass die hypothese der zunehmenden Justizialisierung der Politik als dominantes Forschungsparadigma in der literatur zum bundesverfassungsgericht zu kurz greift. Vielmehr befindet sich das Gericht in einem Spannungsfeld mit anderen Akteuren, mit der Regierung, der Opposition, regulären gerichten sowie den bürgern in Form von individuellen Klägern sowie der Öffentlichkeit. Im Folgenden werden institutionelle Verknüpfungen dieser Akteure identifiziert und neue Forschungsfragen aufgeworfen. Abschließend werden die damit verbundenen herausforderungen in theoretischer, methodischer und empirischer hinsicht erörtert.Abstract: This article argues that the Judicialization hypothesis as a dominant research paradigm in the literature on the bundesverfassungsgericht leaves out a number of relevant aspects. Rather, the court should be understood as being embedded in an area of competing interests among government, opposition, courts, litigating citizens and public opinion. The article identifies the institutional links between actors and relevant research questions. Finally, it discusses the theoretical, methodological and empirical challenges for further research on the bundesverfassungsgericht.

The European Court of Justice and the Policy Process

“…Analyses of courts as political actors can be roughly distinguished into two categories: those which downplay or emphasize their impact. Scholars who deny that courts can have any significant impact typically stress the idea that courts are essentially 'reactive' (Conant 2012: 11) actors that are dependent on both litigants bringing cases before them and on governments and legislatures complying with their rulings (Hönnige and Gschwend 2010). Scholars who regard courts as active or dynamic political actors typically point out that law is an incomplete contract in need of interpretation.…”

The German Federal Courts Dataset 1950–2019: From Paper Archives to Linked Open Data

“…Two of the seven courts (BAG and BGH) were willing and able to furnish typewritten allocation plans directly from their court records, while the other five courts denied having even retained files from their early years . Another eight allocation plans for the Constitutional Court were provided by a member of the project's academic supervisory board, who had previously collaborated on a project funded by the German National Science Foundation (DFG), “The Federal Constitutional Court as a Veto Player” (Hönnige & Gschwend ; http://www.ccdb.eu).…”

“…This renewed interest requires data on the internal structures of the judiciary; yet, there is no requirement in Europe for courts even to publish their decisions, let alone acknowledge and systematically document the judges sitting on the bench. So European researchers are left “largely in the dark” (Hönnige & Gschwend :513) about the inner workings of even top‐tier courts. This scarcity of data not only impinges on people's fundamental “Right of Public Access to Legal Information” (Mitee ) and hampers research within civil‐law jurisdictions, but also precludes research comparing the court systems of common‐ and civil‐law jurisdictions.…”

“…Hönnige and Gschwend () reviewed existing theoretical and empirical literature on the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG), identifying a lack of empirical research on the court's institutional structures, the actors involved, and the different stages of their decision‐making procedures. Both existing research approaches (which the authors labeled “interpretative sociological” and “rational choice” institutionalism) were found to suffer from a lack of data: “Our knowledge of the Federal Constitutional Court is still limited, as Christian van Ooyen noted.…”