TFL Vsebine / Revija Revus

To, da nimamo nobenega naveznega lika sodnika in nobene enopomenske opredelitve tega poklica, izhaja danes precej manj iz odsotnosti ozirov kot iz njihovega preobilja. Preobilje ozirov je seveda znak ponovoveštva. Kaj naj vendar pravnik in posebej še sodnik nadene nase, da bo oblačilo ustrezalo številnim vlogam, ki jih od njega zahtevamo? – Akademik Ost začne razpravo z obuditvijo dveh skrajnjih likov pravnosti – Jupitra in Herakleja – da bi med njima izrisal Hermesa, ki s svojo zapletenostjo lahko nakaže pot pri opravljanju zahtevnih sodniških nalog. Jupiter pomeni klasični (celinski) lik modela prava s (transcedentnim in Svetim) zakonodajalcem in njegovim abstraktnim ter splošnim Zakonikom; s pravnim in političnim monizmom; z izpeljano in premočrtno racionalnostjo, izhajajočo iz vrha piramide in prežemajočo stopnjevito hierarhijo večidel zapovedujočih norm; s časnostjo, usmerjeno v obvladljivo prihodnost.

If we are lacking in our times a referential model for judges, it is paradoxically not as much because of the absence of references, but rather because of their abundance. This abundance is, of course, a sign of post-modernity, which likes to play with travesties. It is also true that in these times a judge has many roles to play. So, what is he to choose from the magazine of the accessories of justice? Which is the dress that would suite best his multitask profession? In order to present a referential model for a complex job, the author first presents us with two extreme though typical figures of juridicity: Jupiter and Hercules. Jupiter stands for the classical (continental) model of law: the (transcendental and sacred) legislator and his abstract and general code; legal and political monism; deductive and linear rationality spreading down the pyramid through a hierarchy of mostly imperative norms; a time, which is oriented towards a controllable future.