Editorial

• Author: Caoimhe Stafford
• Pages: 9-11

Editorial

The Celtic Tiger may be long gone, but the roar of the Irish people has never

been louder. In the past year, citizens have routinely dismissed the

government’s rhetoric of growth and recovery, and they are increasingly

questioning political and legal decisions. Indeed, as this Volume was

compiled in House 6 of Trinity College, the Editorial Board listened to the

chants of thousands marching in protest against incoming water charges.

This heightened criticism levelled at members of government indicates a

growing frustration with the state of our law, but that is not all: there is a

progressive realisation that we have some ownership over the law – and its

effects. The traditional obtuseness of the law is no longer accepted as a

matter of course. Perhaps this claim is best evidenced by the Constitutional

Convention, which has prompted a number of referenda that will take place

in the coming year. Arguably, the most significant of these is the same-sex

marriage referendum. There is a sincere awareness that the outcome of the

referendum is important, and that the power to shape our own and others’

perception of a modern Ireland, for better or for worse, lies in our hands.

It is younger generations in particular who seem to understand that

mere criticism, without action or proposals for reform, can only achieve so

much. The Trinity College Law Review has endeavoured to stimulate such

discussion this year with a renewed Distinguished Speaker Series, the

launch of the “Alternative Perspectives” writing competition for non law-

students, and the introduction of a blog run by our Junior Editorial Board. I

believe that the twelve articles contained in this Volume further reflect this

dynamic and rehabilitative approach to legal critique. Each author has not

only successfully critiqued their own chosen field of law, but they have also

offered thoughtful and original suggestions for improvements to the law,

and legal thinking more generally.

We open this Volume with one such article: “Ireland and Judicial

(In)dependence in Light of the Twenty-Ninth Amendment to the

Constitution.” In this article, Clare Kelly argues that the twenty-ninth

amendment has adversely affected judicial independence, and advocates for

an independent judicial pay commission in order to rectify its impact. “Law

and Indeterminacy: Causes and Consequences” by Conor Casey, is more

theoretical in its consideration of judicial reasoning. Casey discusses two

distinct approaches to the legal indeterminacy critique – the strong and weak

theses. He argues that they both provide insightful critiques of conventional

formalist legal reasoning, but also contends that they are somewhat

overstated.