Relacje między wyborem estetycznym a politycznym w performansach parapolitycznych, politycznych i metapolitycznych

In this paper, the author reflects on the relationship between the aesthetic and political choice in performance. The considerations are based on the examples of Janusz Palikot’s rally, Critical Mass, Pobyt tolerowany and Portfolio (by Ewa Łukasiewicz, Weronika Fibich), O miłości (by Julia Jakubowska, Paweł Korbus), Mandala (by Iza Giczewska). Assuming that each performance is political because it’s oriented towards the viewer the performances were divided as: quasi-political, political and metapolitical. Using the tools from “Transformative Power of Performance: A New Aesthetics” by Erika Fischer-Lichte the performances were analysed and assessed depending on whether their materiality was formed as a result of an aesthetic choice or as a result of political choice. Among the conclusions we can find the statement that the more politics in the performance, the more aesthetic choices are equal to the political choices.In this paper, the author reflects on the relationship between theaesthetic and political choice in performance. The considerationsare based on the examples of Janusz Palikot’s rally, Critical Mass,Pobyt tolerowany and Portfolio (by Ewa Łukasiewicz, WeronikaFibich), O miłości (by Julia Jakubowska, Paweł Korbus), Mandala(by Iza Giczewska). Assuming that each performance is political becauseit’s oriented towards the viewer the performances were dividedas: quasi-political, political and metapolitical. Using the tools from“Transformative Power of Performance: A New Aesthetics” by ErikaFischer-Lichte the performances were analysed and assessed dependingon whether their materiality was formed as a result of an aestheticchoice or as a result of political choice. Among the conclusions we canfind the statement that the more politics in the performance, the moreaesthetic choices are equal to the political choices.

Not Just Abortion

First published online on Verfassungblog: 20 December 2023On 14 December 2023, the European Court of Human Rights (“ECHR”) ruled in the case M.L. v. Poland. The ECHR decided that the restrictions on abortion rights that Poland had violated Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights (“Convention”). The judgment is one more step and, surely, not the last in the rather intense battle over abortion law in Poland. On 22 October 2020, the Polish Constitutional Court (“CC”) restricted the already narrow right to abortion in Poland. The CC’s decision resulted from right-wing legal mobilization, and it ignited counter-mobilization by women’s rights advocate groups that turned to the ECHR for protection. The 14 December decision is thus the result of a string of mobilizations within which NGOs, populist power, law and religion, constitution, and the rule of law clash. However, contrary to the hopes of the initiators of the case, this is not a European Roe v. Wade moment. The ECHR again refused to affirm that Article 8 can be interpreted as conferring a right to abortion, as it did in the case of A., B., and C. v. Ireland. Nevertheless, the ECHR made significant findings regarding rule of law violations and claimed that the Polish CC did not meet the requirements of an independent court. Thereby, the ECHR indicated a desirable direction for further reforms in Poland

The Authority Trap:Constitutional Erosion of Reproductive Rights in Poland

This article examines two pivotal judgments of the Polish Constitutional Court onabortion, issued in 1997 and 2020, to explore the evolving role of constitutionaladjudication in the erosion of reproductive rights. Through a comparative analysis oflegal reasoning, socio-political context, academic critique, and dissenting opinions,the study reveals the argumentative continuity between the judgment despite significant differences in judicial legitimacy. While the 2020 judgment - widely criticized for its procedural flaws, court-packing, and populist influences - was delivered by a politicized bench, its legal foundation was laid in the earlier 1997 judgment, which also framed fetal life as constitutionally protected from conception. Moreover, the analysis highlights how abstract, decontextualized adjudication, detached from real-life implications, have been used to obscure the active engagement of non-state actors, particularly the Catholic Church, in legal mobilization. Drawing on legal texts, dissenting opinions, and socio-legal scholarship, the article challenges the notion that democratic backsliding began only after the populist surge, arguing instead that earlier judgments already exhibited exclusionary reasoning and a disregard for women’s lived experiences. By interrogating the symbolic authority of constitutional actors within a populist framework, the study contributes to broader debates on judicial neutrality, right-wing legal mobilization, and the instrumental use of constitutional courts as ideological enforcers. It concludes that restoring prior adjudicative standards alone will not suffice to protect reproductive rights or reverse democratic decline, calling instead for inclusive, context-sensitive approaches to constitutional justice

Populism, non-state actors and right-wing legal mobilization in Europe

This article serves as an introduction to the special issue on ‘Populism and Right-Wing Legal Mobilization in Europe’. We point to the dependence of populists in power on non-state actors: populist governments have ideological and political reasons to need the support of civil society’s right-wing representatives and have the financial and institutional means to strengthen those organizations. We then map right-wing legal mobilization in Europe based on the analyses in the special issue. By right-wing legal mobilization, we understand the organized efforts, resources, and strategies employed by individuals, groups, or organizations with conservative or right-leaning ideologies to embody their values in positive law and its interpretation. The text concludes with a dynamic normative framework to assess this type of mobilization. Drawing on recent contributions from comparative constitutional law, human rights, and socio-legal studies, we argue that the analysis and evaluation of right-wing legal mobilization could be based on a comprehensive analysis of three bundles of issues: (1) the relationship between mobilizing actors and the courts, as well as the local standard of judicial independence, (2) the relation of right-wing argumentation to systemic linkages and historical trajectories of human rights, (3) the redistributive effect (economic and symbolic) and the potential success of such mobilization on the legal capacities of other actors who may have opposing interests. From this perspective, the problematic part of right-wing legal mobilization in the context of populism is, therefore, not its ideological, conservative character but its influence on the rule of law to gain strategic advantage. In the process, the very idea of the rule of law and the related issue of civic agency may be compromised