Module: Judges & Judging

Latest Module Specifications

Current Academic Year 2025 - 2026

Module Title	Judges & Judging
Module Code	LAW1067 (ITS: LG5066)
Faculty	Law & Government	School	Humanities & Social Sciences
NFQ level	9	Credit Rating	10

Description

This module explores the role of the judge, and practice of adjudication, in the contemporary constitutional state. It is in three parts: I. Adjudication – in theory and in practice II. Judicial review and democracy – theoretical debates III. The politics of judges and judging – diversity The module aims for depth rather than breadth. Thus we select a limited set of quite particular matters – particular judgments, scholarly debates; institutional arrangements/practices in particular jurisdictions etc. – and explore them thoroughly. The first part, on adjudication, involves analysis of a selection of written judgments in the domain of constitutional law. Based on that analysis, we shall consider questions concerning interpretation, reasoning, and disagreement in adjudication. (Subject to availability, we shall involve Mr Justice John McMenamin, DCU Judge-in-Residence and judge of the irish Supreme Court, in this matter). The second part, on judicial review and democracy, involves analysis of a selection of scholarly debates within constitutional theory. Based on that analysis, we shall consider questions concerning the legitimacy of judicial power, the effectiveness of judges as agents of social change, and related matters. The third part, on the politics of judges and judging, involves analysis of a selection of institutional arrangements and practices (judicial appointments, diversity among judges, judicial discipline, judicial remedies, judicial authority in respect of ‘political questions’, for example) in particular constitutional systems The module is best understood as a weekly scholarly ‘book club’. Students are given a set of reading tasks each week; the seminar is a discussion of that material.

Learning Outcomes

1. describe the structure of a written judgment, and identify the reasoning within it
2. analyse how judges interpret constitutional norms and reason towards an outcome
3. compare and evaluate different approaches taken, and decisions reached, by different judges within the same case
4. analyse and evaluate the role of the judge in a constitutional state, including in respect of questions concerning substantive justice, rights protection, and democratic legitimacy
5. compare and evaluate institutional arrangements or practice across selected jurisdictions in respect of, for example, judicial appointments, judicial training, or judicial remedies

*Type*	*Hours*	*Description*
Workload	Full time hours per semester
Independent Study	75	Reading prescribed material in advance of class
Seminars	22	Attending and participating in 11 x 2 hour seminars
Fieldwork	15	Preparing and delivering oral and written material for assessment
Assignment Completion	20	Preparing and delivering written material for assessment
Total Workload: 132

Section Breakdown
CRN	10909	Part of Term	Semester 1
Coursework	0%	Examination Weight	0%
Grade Scale	40PASS	Pass Both Elements	Y
Resit Category	RC1	Best Mark	N
Module Co-ordinator	Thomas Hickey	Module Teacher

Type	Description	% of total	Assessment Date
Assessment Breakdown
Participation	Participation – including completion of ‘learning journals’	30%	n/a
Group presentation	Oral & collaborative (e.g. recorded discussion)	30%	n/a
Extended Essay / Dissertation	Assignment – written, circa 4000 words	40%	n/a

Reassessment Requirement Type
Resit arrangements are explained by the following categories; RC1: A resit is available for both^* components of the module. RC2: No resit is available for a 100% coursework module. RC3: No resit is available for the coursework component where there is a coursework and summative examination element. ^* ‘Both’ is used in the context of the module having a coursework/summative examination split; where the module is 100% coursework, there will also be a resit of the assessment

Pre-requisite	None
Co-requisite	None
Compatibles	None
Incompatibles	None

All module information is indicative and subject to change. For further information,students are advised to refer to the University's Marks and Standards and Programme Specific Regulations at: http://www.dcu.ie/registry/examinations/index.shtml

Indicative Content and Learning Activities

Error parsing Indicative Content: Control character error, possibly incorrectly encoded - 3

Indicative Reading List

Books:

1: 0, Ronald Dworkin, Freedom’s Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996), pp. 1-39, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1
1: 0, Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, Erika Rackley (Eds) Feminist Judgments: From Theory to Practice (Bloomsbury: 2010). Chs 1, 2, 1
1: 0, Richard Bellamy, Political Constitutionalism (Cambridge UP, 2007),
1: 0, Fiona de Londras, “In Defence of Judicial Innovation and Constitutional Evolution”, in Hickey, Cahillane and Gallen, Judges, Politics and the Irish Constitution (Manchester University Press, 2017),
1: 0, Eoin Daly, “Reappraising judicial supremacy in the Irish constitutional tradition” in Hickey, Cahillane and Gallen (eds), Judges, Politics and the Irish Constitution (Manchester University Press, 2017),
1: 0, Aileen Kavanagh, Collaborative Constitutionalism (2021),

Articles:

1: 0, Jeremy Waldron, “The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review” (2006) 115 Yale Law Journal 1346, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0
0: Laura Cahillane, “Judicial Diversity in Ireland” 2016 IJLS 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 2
Erika Rackley, Women, Judging and the Judiciary: From Difference to Diversity (Routledge: 2012) Chs 1, 6: 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 2, 1
1: 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 2, 1, 0
1: 1, 1, 0, 2, 1, 0, Aharon Barak, "Foreword: A Judge on Judging: The Role of a Supreme Court in a Democracy" (2002) 116 Harvard Law Review 16
1: 1, 0, 2, 1, 0, 1, Elgie, McAuley and O’Malley, ‘The (not-so-surprising) non-partisanship of the Irish Supreme Court’ (2018) 33 Irish Political Studies 88
1: 0, 2, 1, 0, Gerry Whyte, ‘The Role of the Supreme Court in our Democracy: A Response to Mr. Justice Hardiman’, (2006) 28 Dublin University Law Journal 1, 1, 1
0: 2, 1, 0, 1, Tom Hickey, The republican core of the case for judicial review (2019) International Journal of Constitutional Law, 1, 1, 1

Other Resources

None