Historical-Normative Reasoning into Judicial Ethics in France and Germany: The Bangalore Principles as a Common Framework
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51743/cih.640Keywords:
France, Germany, Deontology, Judicial Ethics, Bangalore Principles, UNAbstract
This article examines the principal contemporary historical milestones relevant to the development of judicial ethics in France and Germany. By subjecting both countries to a comparative analysis of their respective principles of judicial ethics —both in light of the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2002) at the universal level and within the framework of European normative instruments— the study seeks to elucidate their differences, similarities, points of correspondence, and current status. The findings reveal
the existence of a common ethical and moral foundation that may support the defense of a potentially universalizable conception of judicial ethics. The methodology employed consists primarily of a comprehensive literature review and documentary analysis, with a predominant reliance on comparative law as the principal analytical approach.
Downloads
References
AMOS, M. (2025). Justiz in den sozialen Medien: Die Angst vor dem tanzenden Richter, Beck-Aktuell: Heute im Recht, Disponible https://rsw.beck.de/aktuell/daily/meldung/detail/justiz- oeffentlichkeitsarbeit-social-media-vertrauen-tiktok [12 de marzo de
2025].
BURGHARDT, M. (2009). Ritcherliche Ethik im Netzwerk des DRB, DRiZ.
CANIVET, G. (2003). La conception française de la déontologie des magistrats, Revue Esprit, pp. 5-22.
COMBETTES, P. (2016). La déontologíe des magistrats. Disponible en: https://actu.dalloz-etudiant.fr/focus-sur/article/la-deontologie-des-magistrats/h/065dc5c63add28b0e22b8ebbc96d63cd.html [4 mayo 2024].
ELAINE, M. (2018). Researching judicial ethical codes, or: How to eat a mille-feuille? International Journal for Court Administration, vol. 9, 2, p. 58. DOI: 10.18352/ijca.277.
GORDLEY, J. (2013). The jurists: a critical history, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 141-164. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199689392.003.0006.
HÖFFE, O. (2023). Lexikon der Ethik, CH Beck, pp. 115 y ss. ISBN: 978 3406 568107.
KATZLBERGER, S. y BIRKLBAUER, A. Ausgewählte aspekte der richterethik, Johannes Kepler Universität Linz, Österreich, pp. 5-7.
KRETH, E. (2009). Die richterliche Unabhängigkeit: Wahrung einer sich nicht selbst erfüllenden Aufgabe, DRiZ, (julio), pp. 198-200 y p. 201.
LAPORT, A. y THIBAULT, A. (2014). L’éthique du magistrat, Ecole Normale Supérieure de Rennes, Etic, 9, p. 5.
LAZAROVA, A. (2022). A call for harmonized rules and tools for judicial ethics and professional conduct in EU, EJTN-THEMIS, Bulgaria, p. 6.
LLEDÓ VÁSQUEZ, R. I. (2015). El Principio de legalidad en el derecho penal internacional, Tesis doctoral por la Universidad Carlos III, Getafe, pp. 11-16.
MAITREPIERRE, E. J. (2010). Ethics, deontology, discipline of judges and prosecutors in France, p. 157. Resource Material Series, UNAFEI, n.º 80:255, p. 257.
MOSBACHER, A. (2016). Facebook - Sheriff und online columnist: modern Richter. Disponible https://www.lto.de/recht/hintergruende/h/richter-moderne-medien-wuerde-amt-zurueckhaltung- und-maessigungsgebot/
PERREUX, E. (2018). Enseigner l’éthique et la déontologie aux futurs magistrats, Cahiers de la Justice, n.º 2, 2018/2, pp. 267-274. https://doi.org/10.3917/cdlj.1802.0267.
ROOS, S. R. y WOISCHNIK, J. (2005,). Códigos de Ética Judicial. Un estudio de derecho comparado con recomendaciones para los países latinoamericanos, KAS, Montevideo, p. 18.
SCHNEIDER, U. (2017). Richterliche Ethik im Spannungsfeld zwischen richterlicher Unabhängigkeit und Gesetzesbindung, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, pp. 165 y ss. https://doi.org/10.3790/978-3-428-55202-3.
SIMONIS, M. (2017). The role of judicial ethics in court administration: from setting the objectives to practical implementation, Baltic Journal of Law & Politics, 1, p. 105. https://doi.org/10.1515/bjlp-2017-0004.
STEFFEN, L. (2009). Bemerkungen zur richterlichen Ethik aus der Perspektive des Grundgesetzes und des Deutschen Richtergesetzes, Justizministerialblatt für Schleswig-Holstein, 4, p. 101.
TUSSEAU, G. (2022). Remarks on the Discipline and Deontology of Magistrates in France, Scuola Superiore Magistratura, Quaderno 17, Roma, ISBN 9791280600189, p. 158.
VIGUIER, Y. (2013). Penser le bon juge: sociogenèse et usages du Recueil des obligations déontologiques des magistrats, Science Politique, p. 88.
Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz., Regelungen in Bund und Ländern über das berufsethische Verhalten von Richtern und Staatsanwälten, 2016. Disponible https://www.beamtn-informationen.de/media/pdf/Kompendium_von_Regelungen_
in_Bund_und_Laendern_ueber-_das_berufsethische_Verhalten_von_Richtern_und_Staatsanwaelten_2016.pdf
Collège de deontologie des Magistrats de l´ordre judiciaire, Rapport d´activité Janvier 2022 - Juillet 2023, Disponible http://www.conseil-superieur-magistrature.fr/sites/default/files/ publication/rapport_2022-2023.pdf
Conseil Superieur de la Magistrature: Préambule Recueil des obligations dèontologiques des magistrats, Editions Dalloz, 2010, p. XIV.
Conseil Superieur de la Magistrature, Introduction: Recueil des obligations déontologiques des Magistrats, París, 2019.
Consejo Consultivo de los Jueces europeos (CCEJ). Dictamen n.º OP, 3, (ccje/doc2001/ccje (2002) op n.° 3 f]), p. 6.
Council of Europe, Working party of the consultative Council of European Judges (CCJEGT), Comentarios n.º 1 (2002) del grupo de trabajo del Consejo Consultivo de los Jueces Europeos sobre el código de conducta judicial- Borrador de Bangalore, CCJEGT,
1, 20 (2002).
Deutscher Richterbund DRB, Ritcherethik in Deutschland: Thesen fur diskussion richterlicher und staatsanwaltlicher berufsethik im Deutschen richterbund, Broschüre des DRB, 2018, Berlin. Disponible <https://www.drb.de/fileadmin/DRB/pdf/Ethik/1901_
DRB- Broschuere_Richterethik_EN_Judicial_Ethics.pdf [13 de mayo 2024].
- Deutscher Richterbund DRB., Vertreter der dritten Staatsgewalt tragen besondere Verantwortung,
2025. Disponible en: https://www.drb.de/positionen/themen-des-richterbundes/ethik [15 de mayo 2024].
Tribunal Constitucional Federal Alemán, Guía de Conducta para los Magistrados del Tribunal Constitucional Federal”, 2017. Disponible en: https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/DE/ DasBundesverfassungsgericht/RichterinnenRichter/Ve rhaltensleitlinien/
verhaltensleitlinien_node.html [19 de abril 2025].
Tribunal Federal de Justicia (Bundesgerichtshof), sentencia de 12 de enero de 2016, asunto número 3 StR 482/15.
Unión Universal de Magistrados, Estatuto Universal del Juez,2007, artículo 6, bajo el epígrafe Ética https://www .unodc.or g/res/ji/import/international_standards/ the_universal_charter_of_the_judge/universal_charter_2017_spanish.pdf
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 CUADERNOS DE INVESTIGACIÓN HISTÓRICA
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The Fundación Universitaria Española publishing house preserves the patrimonial rights (copyright) of published works, and encourages and allows their reuse. The works are published in the electronic edition of the journal under a license “Creative Commons Atribución/Reconocimiento-NoComercial 4.0 Licencia Pública Internacional — CC BY-NC 4.0”, and can be copied, used, disseminated, transmitted and publicly exhibited, provided that : a) the authorship and original source of its publication is cited (journal, publisher and URL of the work); b) are not used for commercial purposes; c) the existence and specifications of this license of use are mentioned.
The author / s partially transfer the property rights (copyright) of this work to the Fundación Universitaria Española (Spain) (NIF: G28433670), for the printed and online editions.
It also declares to have respected the ethical principles of research and to be free from any conflict of interest.
«C.I.H.» encourages the authors and the scientific community to the maximum promotion and dissemination of the works in their final version through:
1) Your list of contacts (emails) and social networks (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn ...).
2) Institutional repository of your University and public repositories (Mendeley, Cosis ...).
3) Scientific social networks (ResearchGate, Academia.edu, Kudos ...).
4) Personal or institutional website, blog, etc.
5) Google Scholar, ORCID, ResearchID, ScopusID, Dimensions, PlumX ...
6) Printed copies purchased directly and sent to specialists for reading and subsequent citation if appropriate.
For the nomination of future articles by authors of "C.I.H.", the impact of previous works will be taken into account, so that those with citation higher than the annual average of the journal will be preferred.
2.jpg){kind=logo}
1.png)
1.png)
1.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
1.png)
1.png)
