The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Panopticon of the Slovak Judiciary – Continuity of Power Centers and Mental Dependence
Open accessAbstract
This Article explores the similarities between the principles which guide the judiciary nowadays and those typical for the functioning of the Communist justice system, particularly the susceptibility to obedience to the requests, orders, or meeting anticipations. The habitus of the judges typical for the authoritarian regime has persisted until these days and was the main reason for the judicial corruption revealed in the “Threema scandal.” This Article’s argument does not connect the judiciary’s dependency to the Communist legacy embodied in members of the judiciary who served before 1989 and are active today. Still, the argument presumes that the Communist heritage is a key to understanding the current situation. The past heritage is hidden in the habitus of the agents or members of the judiciary. This habitus may be unconscious yet defining for the behavior of the agents. The Article aims to identify which continuities of the judicial habitus are apparent in the current judiciary. To demonstrate changes in the position of the judiciary, it presents a thesis of the development of the judiciary from an instrument of the governing party in maintaining a homogenous and subordinated society to the current situation of the Slovak judiciary, defined as a crisis of mental independence resulting in inappropriate behavior and corruption.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Communist parties kept judges on a short leash, instructed them how to decide politically salient cases, or used them to consolidate and display the parties' power in political show trials.
“Communist parties kept judges on a short leash, instructed them how to decide politically salient cases (a practice colloquially referred to as ‘telephone justice’18), or used them to consolidate and display the parties’ power in political show trials.19”
From Purging the Judiciary After a Transition: Between a Rock and a Hard Place (2025) · cites this paper as [19]
Judges played an indispensable role in communist regimes.
“First, judges played an indispensable role in communist regimes.”
From Purging the Judiciary After a Transition: Between a Rock and a Hard Place (2025) · cites this paper as [19]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Purging the Judiciary After a Transition: Between a Rock and a Hard Place
Šipulová, K., & Kosař, D. (2025) · Hague Journal on the Rule of Law · doi:10.1007/s40803-024-00201-y · Cited by 6
“27 See Bobek (2008), Kosař (2016), Kühn (2011, 2021), Čuroš (2021).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Čuroš, P.
- Affiliations
- University of Oslo (NO)
- Corresponding author
- Čuroš, Peter
- ORCID
- Čuroš, Peter
- Venue
- German Law Journal
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2021-10
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1247-1281
- ISSN
- 2071-8322 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3210072857
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4
- FWCI
- 6.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- German Law Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Judicial and Constitutional Studies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Eastern European Communism and Reforms
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal Systems and Judicial Processes
- Keywords
- judicial corruption, communist legacy, habitus, authoritarianism, judicial independence, post-communist transition
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review