Abstract

It is a constitutional demand for judges to be objective. Ethical codes show that objectivity depends on rules enabling individuals to counter their subjectivity. Yet these codes focus on judges’ general behaviour while methodology strives for objectivity in the judges’ core task of applying the law on a specific case. Various methods are examined whether they guarantee or at least contribute to an objective interpretation of the law within the existing margin of interpretation. Conscious application of methodology is elaborated upon as a demand of a democratic state under the rule of law. While the principle of judicial independence already limits control of the external result of the adjudication process, it is almost impossible to control the internal process of applying the law that takes place only inside the judge’s head. Thus, it is up to each judge to ensure objectivity by internally binding themselves to a conscious application of methods - therefore constituting an ethical demand.