Mirjan Damaska, The faces of Justice and State Authority, New Haven, Yale
University Press 1986, pp. 16-96
Two Ideals of Officialdom (structure of authority)
Damaska distinguishes three aspects of authority, which are analytically independent:
1. The attributes of officials. The usual focus is on the distinction between professionalized,
permanent officials and those who are untrained and transitory.
2. The relationships of officials. Two lesser configuration deserve special consideration: under
the first, officials are locked into a strict network of super- and subordination; under the
second, they are rough equals, organized into a single echelon of authority.
3. The manner in which officials make decisions. the critical distinction is between decision
making pursuant to special or “technical” standards, and decision making informed by
undifferentiated or general community norms.
Then, Damaska makes a selection of only two composite structures of authority from a larger
number of possibilities.
Hierarchical ideal. This structure essentially corresponds to conceptions of classical
bureaucracy. It is characterized by a professional corps of officials, organized into a hierarchy
which makes decisions according to technical standards.
Coordinate ideal. This structure has no readily recognizable analogue in established theory. It
is defined by a body of nonprofessional decision makers, organized into a single level of
authority which makes decisions by applying undifferentiated community standards
To the extent to which the organization of judicial authority influences the design of the legal
process, the hierarchical and the coordinate ideals offer a convenient perspective upon the contrast
between Continental and Anglo-American styles of administering justice.
Hierarchical Ideal Coordinate Ideal
Professionalization of Officials Lay Officials
Permanent/ Permanently places officials carve out a Ideally, power is vested in amateurs who are
Ad hoc sphere of practice which they regard as called upon to perform authoritative
their special province. Over time, they functions ad hoc, or for a limited time. Where
also develop a sense of identity with the apparatus of authority is in the hands of
similarly situated individuals, so that such temporary officials, there is little
lines become rigid between “insiders” opportunity for a spirit of exclusivity to
and “outsiders”. develop. Insiders and outsiders in relation to
the judicial apparatus are not sharply
distinguished, and the distinction is likely to
be of little importance.
Long / short Long terms of office create the space for Given short terms of office, routinization of
terms of office routinization and specialization of activity has little chance to develop: neophyte
tasks. A professional acquires the officials confront their jobs green – with
capacity of anesthetizing his heart, if ample room for spontaneity and
necessary, and of making decisions in improvisations, for reacting emotionally and
his official capacity that he might never acting ex abundantia cordis.
make as an individual.
University Press 1986, pp. 16-96
Two Ideals of Officialdom (structure of authority)
Damaska distinguishes three aspects of authority, which are analytically independent:
1. The attributes of officials. The usual focus is on the distinction between professionalized,
permanent officials and those who are untrained and transitory.
2. The relationships of officials. Two lesser configuration deserve special consideration: under
the first, officials are locked into a strict network of super- and subordination; under the
second, they are rough equals, organized into a single echelon of authority.
3. The manner in which officials make decisions. the critical distinction is between decision
making pursuant to special or “technical” standards, and decision making informed by
undifferentiated or general community norms.
Then, Damaska makes a selection of only two composite structures of authority from a larger
number of possibilities.
Hierarchical ideal. This structure essentially corresponds to conceptions of classical
bureaucracy. It is characterized by a professional corps of officials, organized into a hierarchy
which makes decisions according to technical standards.
Coordinate ideal. This structure has no readily recognizable analogue in established theory. It
is defined by a body of nonprofessional decision makers, organized into a single level of
authority which makes decisions by applying undifferentiated community standards
To the extent to which the organization of judicial authority influences the design of the legal
process, the hierarchical and the coordinate ideals offer a convenient perspective upon the contrast
between Continental and Anglo-American styles of administering justice.
Hierarchical Ideal Coordinate Ideal
Professionalization of Officials Lay Officials
Permanent/ Permanently places officials carve out a Ideally, power is vested in amateurs who are
Ad hoc sphere of practice which they regard as called upon to perform authoritative
their special province. Over time, they functions ad hoc, or for a limited time. Where
also develop a sense of identity with the apparatus of authority is in the hands of
similarly situated individuals, so that such temporary officials, there is little
lines become rigid between “insiders” opportunity for a spirit of exclusivity to
and “outsiders”. develop. Insiders and outsiders in relation to
the judicial apparatus are not sharply
distinguished, and the distinction is likely to
be of little importance.
Long / short Long terms of office create the space for Given short terms of office, routinization of
terms of office routinization and specialization of activity has little chance to develop: neophyte
tasks. A professional acquires the officials confront their jobs green – with
capacity of anesthetizing his heart, if ample room for spontaneity and
necessary, and of making decisions in improvisations, for reacting emotionally and
his official capacity that he might never acting ex abundantia cordis.
make as an individual.
