Abstract
The point of this Chapter is to carve out political principles that could ground the duty to, at times and provisionally, pause, cool down and listen, as a specific political obligation. The Chapter argues that: first, expanding people’s real opportunities of accessing justice has a value that is dependent on, but not only instrumental to, the value of protecting institutional and social arrangements that allow the effective cooperation between all persons on the basis of their equality; second, social interest and political focus on access to justice has an epistemic value, since it points to perspicuous evidence on the actual functioning of legal and political institutions and on the possible effects of legal reforms; and, third, consistent efforts to realize effective access to justice for all in the space of capabilities have an expressive value, since they embody the ideals of a democratic culture. These three political principles thus specify the political content of the duty to pause, cool down and listen: We should model public institutions in access to justice, the chapter argues, as a means to protect people from unequal social relations, as a means to protect the epistemic capacities of public institutions, and as a means to express a democratic culture in dispute resolution.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
See Anderson (2012), p. 3, n. 4.
- 3.
See, for an illustrative example, Cohen (2008).
- 4.
- 5.
Perhaps a ‘thought-provoking’, or ‘eye opening’, or ‘inspirational’ fantasy, but still a fantasy, nonetheless.
- 6.
Reginald Smith anticipated a similar argument in 1919. See Smith (1919), p. 10: “There exist today businesses established, conducted, and flourishing on the principle that as against the poor the law can be violated with impunity because redress is beyond their reach. […] The effects of this denial of justice are far reaching. Nothing rankles more in the human heart than the feeling of injustice. It produces a sense of helplessness, then bitterness. It is brooded over. It leads directly to contempt for law, disloyalty to the Government, and plants the seeds of anarchy. The conviction grows that law is not justice and challenges the belief that justice is best secured when administered according to law. The poor come to think of American justice as containing only laws that punish and never laws that help. They are against the law because they consider the law against them. A persuasion spreads that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor”.
References
Anderson, E. 1999. What is the Point of Equality? Ethics 109: 287–337.
———. 2006. The Epistemology of Democracy. Episteme 3: 8–22.
———. 2012. The Fundamental Disagreement between Luck Egalitarians and Relational Egalitarian. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 40: 1–23.
Cohen, G. 2008. Rescuing Justice and Equality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Estlund, D. 2009. Democratic Authority. A Philosophical Framework. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Smith, R.H. 1919. Justice and the Poor: A Study of the Present Denial of Justice to the Poor. New York: Arno Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Segatti, M. (2024). The Instrumentalities of Equal Access to Justice: Defending Democratic Cooperation. In: Equal Access to Justice. Law and Philosophy Library, vol 145. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-52939-9_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-52939-9_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-52938-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-52939-9
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)