< Germany excluded ‘conscience’ from its legislative standards to prevent arbitrariness and abuse of judicial power. >

 

<  Germany excluded ‘conscience’ from its legislative standards to prevent arbitrariness and abuse of judicial power. >     Law must no longer operate on the basis of personal inner conviction, but upon public justice and procedural legitimacy. Korea’s judiciary, too, must now stop calling back-alley loyalty “law,” and instead remove the operational space of conscience to lay the structural foundation of justice.     Summary of Germany’s legislative motives and cases for excluding ‘conscience’   • Risk of arbitrary interpretation: Conscience differs from person to person. Judges may reach different conclusions on the same case, undermining legal predictability.   • History of judicial abuse: During the Nazi era,  rulings justified political ideology in the name of ‘conscience,’ leading to instrumentalization of law and human rights violations.   • Legal stability and proceduralism: Germany reinforced formal legitimacy through statutory legislation, excluding metaphysical standards like conscience to clarify legislative responsibility and secure a foundation for judicial clarity and application.   • Hegel’s distinction: Hegel distinguished between ‘formal conscience’ and ‘true conscience,’ arguing that law must be grounded not in personal conviction but in the sentiment of public ethical life.