The study discusses amicable dispute resolution in the light of the constitutional principle of the right to a trial and the constitutional concept of the “administration of justice”. In the paper, the author outlines the definitions and doctrinal approaches present in the ongoing debate in the Polish literature on the status of forms of amicable dispute resolution in the Constitution of the Republic of Poland of 1997. De lege ferenda, the author considers it practical and socially justified to amend the Constitution of the Republic of Poland by explicitly specifying the place of arbitration dispute resolution in the hierarchical system of the Basic Law, hence, as the principle of the right to a trial in its broad meaning, i.e., as the right to an effective means of dispute resolution, as well as by defining relevant relations with the conceptual scope of the “administration of justice”.

The Concept of Legitimacy on the Example of the Status of a Judge in Polish Constitutional Law

The subject of the analysis is the definition of legitimacy of the systemic status of a judge. The author has previously reconstructed two lexical understandings of the term “legitimacy”, which he defined as “state” and “process,” respectively. The thesis, that the way of defining the term “legitimacy” as “process” is adequate for analyzing the legitimacy of a judge’s constitutional position is the apex for further research. The author has formulated his own definition of legitimacy, referring to the judge’s systemic status. This is a particularly momentous task given the complexity of the construct of legitimacy, as well as the prevailing terminological confusion in the doctrine. The problem of legitimacy with regard to judges is crucial not only in terms of the legitimacy of their constitutional position, but also in terms of a possible finding of lack of legitimacy, given the consequences of this.

The Possibility of Entrusting Citizens with the Independent Administration of Justice, Comments in the Context of Article 182 of the Constitution

The wording of Art. 182 of the Constitution is not uniformly interpreted. Such a state of affairs means that on its basis some doctrine builds the possibility of independent exercise of the judiciary by entities other than professional judges, while others claim the opposite. The text contains an analysis of Art. 182 of the Constitution, the purpose of which was to answer the question about the permissible forms of participation of citizens in the exercise of justice. The construction of Art. 182 means that it should be considered an incomplete regulation that gives room for the creation of projects, such as the one concerning magistrates. Its shape introduces uncertainty as to the dimension that this participation may take. However, the analysis allows us to conclude that we can only talk about the participation, and not about the independence of adjudication by entities other than professional judges.