Abusive comparativism in the context of the rule of law crisis

The paper deals with abusive comparativism – a rule of law practice, whose main feature concentrates on reference to other jurisdictions or legal systems, without analyzing the broader constitutional, historical, or institutional contexts. Such a reference (often described as “whataboutism”) relies on a presumption of legality. The method “abuses” the basic rules of comparative law and ignores relevant aspects of the legal culture in a given jurisdiction. In this sense, the abusive comparativism might be seen as a legislative and/or judicial “cherry-picking”. The abusive comparativism aims, first of all, at broadening the scope of discretionary legislative powers, and secondly, it allows to undermine the independence of the state (constitutional) institutions.