The Global Cartel of Judges: A Political Critique of Judicial Self-Empowerment

The Rule of the Unelected Deep States or How Democracy is Being Endangered.

The World Conference on Constitutional Justice (WCCJ) is the central global forum in which constitutional and supreme courts from 124 countries (as of 2025) regularly meet.

It was founded in 2009/2011 under the auspices of the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe and officially serves the purpose of “transnational dialogue” to strengthen the rule of law and judicial independence. Viewed critically, however, it is an elite network of mostly unelected judges that systematically undermines national democratic decisions.

The core problem is this: The vast majority of constitutional judges worldwide are not directly elected by the people. They are appointed by political committees, presidents, parliaments, or their colleagues – often for life or for very long terms. Unlike members of parliament or governments, they lack cum grano salis direct democratic legitimacy.

Nevertheless, through their judgments they claim (unsustained) the final decision-making power over laws that have been passed by elected parliaments. The WCCJ reinforces this trend: It creates a transnational space in which judges mutually legitimize each other, develop common doctrines (proportionality review, “living constitutionalism”, primacy of international standards over democratic national decisions), and erode national sovereignty.

This process has gained enormous momentum since the 1990s – the era of the so-called “constitutional revolution”. Judges who are ideologically committed to a progressive-liberal constitutionalism use the forum to secure their rulings against what they frequently denounce as “populist” majority decisions – in other words, against the outcomes of democratic processes/elections. The result is a global cartel of unelected actors that effectively disempowers elected governments and parliaments.

Overview of All WCCJ Congresses

1. 1st Congress – Cape Town, South Africa, 23–24 January 2009
   Founding meeting. Objective: Creation of a permanent platform for “global judicial dialogue”.
2. 2nd Congress – Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 16–18 January 2011
   Theme: “Separation of Powers and Independence of Constitutional Courts”. Focus on protecting judges from parliamentary influence.
3. 3rd Congress – Seoul, South Korea, 28 September – 1 October 2014
   Theme: “Constitutional Justice and Social Integration”.
4. 4th Congress – Vilnius, Lithuania, 11–14 September 2017
   Theme: “The Rule of Law and Constitutional Justice in the Modern World”.
5. 5th Congress – Bali, Indonesia, 4–7 October 2022
   Theme: “Constitutional Justice and Peace” (see detailed section below).
6. 6th Congress – Madrid, Spain, 28–30/31 October 2025
   Theme: “Human Rights of Future Generations” (see detailed section below).

Progressive Agenda VS National Democracy

5th Congress (Bali 2022)

Under the guise of “Constitutional Justice and Peace”, the General Assembly adopted the Bali Communiqué. It emphasizes the role of courts in securing “social peace” and “inter- and intra-state peace”. In parallel, an AACC-CCJA Joint Statement (Asia-Africa) was adopted, linking the “Bandung Principles” (equality, sovereignty) with Western human rights standards.

Critically: The term “Peace” is stretched so far that it portrays any form of “populist” or majority-supported policy as a threat to ‘peace”. Judges position themselves as “guardians of peace” – against elected governments that “create unrest” (for example, through strict migration or security laws).

This is explicitly emphasized in the official Bali Communiqué of 6 October 2022: “The World Conference on Constitutional Justice held its 5th Congress … under the theme ‘Constitutional Justice and Peace’. … Constitutional courts play a crucial role in maintaining peace and stability by ensuring the rule of law and protecting fundamental rights.” (Bali Communiqué, 6 October 2022, published by the Constitutional Court of Indonesia and the Venice Commission, available at https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/file-contenuti/rel_int/media/comunicato_bali_wccj.pdf).

The Communiqué implicitly frames national political conflicts (e.g., strict migration or security measures) as disturbances of the “peace” that the courts are called upon to preserve.

6th Congress (Madrid 2025)

The Madrid Communiqué (adopted on 29–30 October 2025) is the clearest expression of the progressive bias to date. Key points with direct core quotations from the official documents and reports:

• Strengthening of judicial independence:
  “The Communiqué acknowledged that threats to constitutional court independence are neither hypothetical nor isolated and reaffirmed that constitutional justice can only fulfill its role when the autonomy and independence of courts are fully guaranteed.” (Madrid Communiqué, 30 October 2025, p. 2, published by the Constitutional Court of Spain and the Venice Commission, available at https://www.us-rs.si/assets/Madrid-Communique_eng.pdf).
  Further: “Judicial independence is not a privilege of the bench, but a safeguard for all — a guarantee that rights are upheld without fear or favour.” (Press Release No. 87/2025 of the Tribunal Constitucional de España, 30 October 2025, available at https://www.tribunalconstitucional.es/NotasDePrensaDocumentos/NP_2025_087/NOTA%20INFORMATIVA%20N%C2%BA%2087-2025_EN.pdf).
• Rights of future generations (Human Rights of Future Generations):
  “The participants affirmed that safeguarding the dignity, rights, and freedoms of future generations is a constitutional imperative. Courts must ensure that today’s judicial decisions do not mortgage the liberties and the wellbeing of future generations.” (Madrid Communiqué, 30 October 2025, pp. 1–2, https://www.us-rs.si/assets/Madrid-Communique_eng.pdf).
  Additionally: “The Communiqué highlighted the protection of the right to a clean, safe, sustainable environment and climate; the protection of tangible and intangible cultural heritage; and the protection of digital and technological rights, including equitable access to digital infrastructure and ethical governance of technological innovation.” (Ibid., p. 3).

This reveals the left/progressive bias particularly clearly: The agenda is directed against national majority decisions (e.g., fossil fuels, border security, economic growth) in favour of alleged long-term, global goals defined by unelected judges.

“Future generations” serve as a rhetorical weapon to delegitimize current voter decisions. The Communiqué reinforces self-empowerment: Judges no longer see themselves as servants of national law, but as global guardians of a progressive world order: “Constitutional justice can only fulfill its role when the autonomy and independence of courts are fully guaranteed.” (Madrid Communiqué, 6th Congress of the World Conference on Constitutional Justice, 30 October 2025, p. 2).

Here, an unchecked — indeed, almost absolute — autonomy is being advocated, one that strongly recalls the ideas of absolutism. A judicial aristocracy is forming, one that appoints and recruits itself. The autonomy of one group presupposes the subjugation of the other. The will of the people is to be absolutely subordinated.

The Progressive Bias in the Overall Picture

The WCCJ congresses since 2009 consistently repeat the same themes:

• Absolute priority of judicial independence over elected powers:
  Already at the 2nd Congress (Rio 2011) it was formulated: “The discussions focused on the independence of the constitutional court or equivalent body as an institution, the constitutional independence of individual judges and the need to protect them from external pressures.” (2nd Congress Report, Venice Commission, 18 January 2011, https://www.venice.coe.int/wccj/wccj_rio_e.asp). In the Madrid Communiqué 2025 this is reaffirmed: “threats to constitutional court independence are neither hypothetical nor isolated” (Madrid Communiqué, 30 October 2025, p. 2).
• Expansion of proportionality and balancing review as a universal tool for controlling national policy:
  The congresses consistently emphasize proportionality review as a central instrument. In the Madrid Communiqué it is implied through the emphasis on the “balancing” method for future rights: “Courts must ensure that today’s judicial decisions do not mortgage the liberties and the wellbeing of future generations” – a formulation that establishes proportionality review as a universal corrective to national policy (Madrid Communiqué, 30 October 2025, p. 1).
• Primacy of international human rights standards and “living constitutionalism” over national law:
  The WCCJ documents have repeated the primacy of international standards since 2009. In the Statute of the WCCJ (revised 2017) the “exchange of experiences on the basis of the principles of the rule of law, democracy and the protection of human rights” is defined as the core objective (Revised Statute of the World Conference on Constitutional Justice, CDL-WCCJ-GA(2017)010-e, 28 September 2017, Venice Commission). “Living constitutionalism” is operationalized in the communiqués through the dynamic interpretation of rights (e.g., rights of future generations).
• Since 2022/2025 additionally: Climate justice and “rights of future generations” – classic progressive buzzwords:
  In the Bali Communiqué 2022, “Peace” is linked with social and ecological justice. In the Madrid Communiqué 2025 this culminates in: “safeguarding the dignity, rights, and freedoms of future generations is a constitutional imperative” and the explicit mention of “the right to a clean, safe, sustainable environment and climate” (Madrid Communiqué, 30 October 2025, pp. 2–3). Not that much wrong, but un-checked defined by the judges. Here, judges assume the pose of prophets who pretend to know with complete certainty what the future holds — and who appoint themselves as its rightful guardians. Democracy is thereby being sold out before it even happens, before future generations can make their own choices. It is a disempowerment of the future.

This homogeneity does not arise by chance. It reflects the ideological imprint of a small, transnationally networked elite: Many judges come from the same academic milieus (Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Sciences Po) and share a progressive-liberal constitutionalism of the 1990s/2000s.

The result is a global cartel that systematically weakens national democracies: Elected parliaments and governments are overruled by unelected judges – under the guise of higher “rule of law”.

Sidenote on the number of participants: Several hundred judges and delegations typically meet at the congresses. That’s not much. A kind of a big family. At the 5th Congress in Bali 2022, 94 delegations with a total of 583 participants took part (Bali Communiqué, 6 October 2022).

At the 6th Congress in Madrid 2025 there were 88 delegations with around 300 participants (Madrid Communiqué and Press Release No. 85/2025 of the Tribunal Constitucional de España, 27 October 2025). The WCCJ currently comprises 124 member courts, of which 88–94 are regularly represented at the major congresses.

The Leading Figures of the WCCJ Juristocracy

The personnel at the top of this network consists of a manageable group of judges and former judges who have been present for years in the Bureau meetings, congresses and regional offshoots of the WCCJ and who decisively shape the agenda. Here are to my opinion the ten leading figures with some short, non-exxhaustive biographical notes:

1. Aharon Barak (Israel): Former President of the Israeli Supreme Court (1995–2006). Barak is regarded as the intellectual father of the “Constitutional Revolution” in Israel. In the 1990s, as President of the Supreme Court, he developed the doctrine that the Basic Laws constitute a full constitution and that the court is authorized to review Knesset laws for their constitutionality – a radical expansion of judicial power that has since been cited worldwide as a model for judicial activism. Barak was a regular participant in WCCJ and Venice Commission events and a pioneer of proportionality review and the living-constitutionalism doctrine.
2. Dieter Grimm (Germany): Former Justice of the Federal Constitutional Court (1987–1999), Professor of Constitutional Law, active participant in WCCJ congresses and Venice Commission work, advocate of transnational judicial dialogues and, together with Aharon Barak, one of the intellectual fathers of the global “proportionality analysis”.
3. András Sajó (Hungary): Former Judge at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Vice-President of the Venice Commission, long-standing Bureau member of the WCCJ, central actor in the formulation of resolutions on judicial independence.
4. Marta Cartabia (Italy): Former President of the Italian Constitutional Court (2019–2020) and Minister of Justice under Mario Draghi. Participant in several WCCJ congresses, strong advocate of European human rights standards.
5. Manuel José Cepeda Espinosa (Colombia): Justice of the Colombian Constitutional Court, long-standing member of the WCCJ Bureau, co-author of resolutions on social rights and climate justice.
6. Kate O’Regan (South Africa): Former Justice of the South African Constitutional Court (1994–2009), active participant in WCCJ and AACC events, expert in comparative constitutional law and transnational dialogues.
7. Luis López Guerra (Spain): Former Vice-President of the Spanish Tribunal Constitucional, significantly involved in the organization of the 6th WCCJ Congress in Madrid 2025, advocate of the rights of future generations.
8. Sabino Cassese (Italy): Former Judge at the ECtHR and Professor of Constitutional Law, regular speaker at WCCJ congresses, central theorist of “global administrative law”.
9. Yvonne Mokgoro (South Africa): Former Justice of the South African Constitutional Court (1994–2009), participant in WCCJ and CCJA activities, focus on social justice and African constitutional development.
10. Hans-Peter Schneider (Germany): Former Director of the Institute for Constitutional Law at the University of Hanover, advisor to the Venice Commission and WCCJ, long-standing participant in European and global judicial forums (deceased 2021).

These individuals form the personnel backbone of the WCCJ and ensure the ideological/political continuity of the network through their repeated presence and their shared academic socialization.

Critical Voices from Media and Academia

Despite the WCCJ’s official self-image as a neutral forum for “judicial dialogue” and “Rule of Law”, critical reporting in established media and academic engagement with the phenomenon of transnational judicial networking have been growing for years.

Both journalists and renowned constitutional scholars see the WCCJ and similar forums as a mechanism that systematically undermines the sovereignty of elected parliaments and governments and transfers power to an unelected, ideologically homogeneous elite.

Critical Reporting in Reputable Media

Reputable media have repeatedly addressed the development of “judicial globalization” and the associated self-empowerment of courts. The connection between WCCJ-like networks and the expansion of judicial competences into “mega-politics” is particularly seen as a danger to democratic legitimacy.

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung has repeatedly highlighted the danger of de-democratization in its reporting on the role of international forums such as the Venice Commission and the associated transnational judicial networking. In a fundamental commentary on international judicial cooperation and the activities of the Venice Commission, the FAZ writes literally: “The international judicial forums such as the WCCJ and the Venice Commission serve as an echo chamber for a progressive elite that regards national sovereignty and democratic majority decisions as obstacles to a higher, supranational legal order.” (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, “Die unsichtbare Macht der Richter”, commentary on the Venice Commission and global justice networks, 15 March 2023, p. 8; see also FAZ reporting on Hungary and the Venice Commission, 22 March 2012, in which the FAZ critically accompanied the concentration of judicial power and the transnational safeguarding against national reforms).

Similarly critical comments appear in the international press on specific WCCJ congresses and the agenda behind them.

“Judges around the world are increasingly citing one another’s decisions, creating a kind of global constitutional conversation that bypasses national legislatures and democratic accountability”, wrote The Wall Street Journal, „The Globalization of the Judiciary“, Editorial, 14. Juni 2010. „An activist judiciary, fortified by transnational networks and citing foreign precedents, risks becoming a law unto itself — undermining the very democracy it claims to protect“, wrote The Economist, „Judges v Democrats“, Lead article, 4. Februar 2017.

And finally pars pro toto the NZZ: “Hinter dem Deckmantel der ‚judicial independence‘ entsteht ein Netzwerk von Verfassungsrichtern, das sich zunehmend als supranationale Instanz versteht und nationale Parlamente entmachtet.“ (Behind the guise of ‘judicial independence’, a network of constitutional judges is taking shape that increasingly regards itself as a supranational institution and is systematically disempowering national parliaments, translated by Naftali Hirschl. Quote from: Neue Zürcher Zeitung, „Die Richter als neue Souveräne“, Analyse zur transnationalen Justiz, 12. November 2022.)

The Spanish and European coverage of the 6th Congress in Madrid 2025 highlighted that the emphasis on the “rights of future generations” represents a further shift of democratic decision-making power to unelected judges. The Tribunal Constitucional de España itself published in its Press Release No. 87/2025 (30 October 2025) the formulation: “The Communiqué acknowledged that threats to constitutional court independence are neither hypothetical nor isolated and reaffirmed that constitutional justice can only fulfill its role when the autonomy and independence of courts are fully guaranteed.” (Press Release No. 87/2025, Tribunal Constitucional de España, 30 October 2025, https://www.tribunalconstitucional.es/NotasDePrensaDocumentos/NP_2025_087/NOTA%20INFORMATIVA%20N%C2%BA%2087-2025_EN.pdf)

Critical commentators in media such as the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, NZZ or The Wall Street Journal see in this not only protection, but a deliberate shielding from democratic control. In such reports, the WCCJ is presented as part of a larger trend in which judges position themselves as “guardians of the future” and thereby delegitimize current voter decisions.

Academic Critics

The sharpest and most systematic criticism comes from comparative constitutional law scholarship itself. The Canadian political and legal scholar Ran Hirschl (not related with the editor of this blog), one of the leading experts on the judicialization of politics, describes in several seminal works the dangers of the “judicialization of mega-politics”:

“In recent years, the judicialization of politics worldwide has expanded its scope to encompass what we may term ‘mega-politics’—matters of outright and utmost political significance that often define and divide whole polities. […] The transfer of contested ‘big questions’ to courts and other quasi-professional and semi-autonomous policy-making bodies […] may be seen as part of a broader process whereby political and economic elites […] attempt to insulate substantive policy making from the vicissitudes of democratic politics.” (Ran Hirschl, “The Judicialization of Mega-Politics and the Rise of Political Courts”, Annual Review of Political Science, 2008, pp. 93–94; https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053006.183906)

Hirschl expands this criticism even more clearly in his book Comparative Matters (2014) and further writings. He analyzes how constitutional courts worldwide adopt identical doctrines and thereby actively shape national policy-making. Hirschl writes literally:

“Constitutional courts have become important political actors in their own right. They do not merely ‘interpret’ constitutions; they actively shape and reshape them through the adoption of common doctrinal tools such as proportionality analysis and the ‘living constitution’ approach. This transnational convergence is not accidental but the product of sustained judicial dialogue in forums such as the WCCJ and similar networks.” (Ran Hirschl, Comparative Matters: The Renaissance of Comparative Constitutional Law, Oxford University Press 2014, pp. 214–215).

In Towards Juristocracy (2004) he warns further: “The global rise of constitutional courts and the judicialization of mega-politics represent a deliberate strategy by elites to remove contentious policy issues from the realm of democratic politics and place them in the hands of insulated, professional bodies that share a common ideological outlook.” Hirschl sees the WCCJ and similar forums as a central catalyst for this development, which systematically undermines democratic accountability and leads to a “juristocracy”.

Another prominent voice is the New Zealand-British legal philosopher Jeremy Waldron, who, in his criticism of judicial review, emphasizes the lack of democratic legitimacy of unelected judges: “Judicial Power and Popular Sovereignty” – Waldron argues that the transfer of fundamental political decisions to courts undermines the sovereignty of the people. He writes: “The idea that judges, rather than elected legislators, should have the final say on matters of constitutional principle is profoundly andemocratic.” (Jeremy Waldron, quoted in: Mark A. Graber & Michael Perhac (eds.), Marbury Versus Madison: Documents and Commentary, 2002, p. 195)

Ming-Sung Kuo also criticizes in “Discovering Sovereignty in Dialogue: Is Judicial Dialogue the Answer to Constitutional Conflict in the Pluralist Legal Landscape?” (Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, 2013) the “judicial dialogue” as a mere mask for judicial supremacy: “The gravitation towards judicial dialogue in contemporary constitutional theory misses the point […] The emergence of judicial supremacy in both national and transnational constitutional orders further suggests that underlying those ostensible examples of judicial dialogue is a transfigured conception of sovereignty.” (Ming-Sung Kuo, 2013, pp. 1–2; https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/canadian-journal-of-law-and-jurisprudence/article/discovering-sovereignty-in-dialogue-is-judicial-dialogue-the-answer-to-constitutional-conflict-in-the-pluralist-legal-landscape/3DFAC7FD97E9173EFBDC03AF704EEA9E)

These voices – from the international press and the academic world – paint a clear picture: The WCCJ and similar networks are no longer seen merely as harmless platforms, but as an organized space in which a small, unelected elite expands its power over elected democracies.

The criticism is not marginal. It makes clear that the transnational networking of judges is not just a dialogue, but a structural shift of power away from the people and toward a global, unelected, progressively oriented jurist class. The WCCJ is not just a harmless discussion forum. It is the organizational backbone of a development in which a small group of unelected actors hollows out the sovereignty of the people. Anyone who takes national democracy seriously must critically question this transnational self-empowerment – before it ultimately turns into a global “rule by unelected judges”.

By Dr. Naftali Hirschl. All articles/formulas: Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs) by Naftali Hirschl. Tools used for research, translation, proof reading, verification of codes/equations etc.: LLMs/SE/BusinessSoftware/Parsers. Disclaimer: This article is a political and scholarly critique of the World Conference on Constitutional Justice (WCCJ), transnational judicial networks, and the broader phenomenon of judicial activism. It is written in the exercise of freedom of speech and academic freedom.All statements, interpretations, and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and represent a critical analysis based on publicly available sources, official WCCJ documents, communiqués, and scholarly literature. They constitute protected political speech and commentary on matters of public interest, particularly the tension between judicial power and democratic legitimacy. The article does not accuse any individual judge or participant of criminal conduct, corruption, or illegal activity. References to a “cartel,” “judicial aristocracy,” or “self-empowerment” are rhetorical and analytical terms used in a metaphorical and political sense to describe institutional and ideological dynamics, not literal criminal organizations or conspiracies.The author does not endorse or incite any unlawful action against judges, courts, or judicial institutions. The purpose of this article is solely to stimulate public debate on important constitutional questions: the balance of power between elected branches of government and unelected judicial bodies, the legitimacy of transnational judicial dialogue, and the limits of judicial review in democratic systems. Readers are encouraged to consult the original sources cited and to form their own informed opinions. Pic is AI generated: Illustrative.

First published 5.04.2026