The Anglo-American practice of putting forward policy considerations in judgments is not exclusive to the common law tradition. In the ancient tradition of ius commune, judicial practice also includes types of argument that take into consideration the anticipated effects of a decision in either direction. However, most examples in the continental tradition are to be found in commercial and economic litigation. Nowadays, it is often the courts closest to political power that seem willing to spell out such reasoning in the grounds for their judgments (for example, in France, the Conseil d'État and the Conseil constitutionnel).
Despite the criticisms (notably, of amateurism) to which policy considerations may be subject, making them explicit in the reasons for judgments enables us to better grasp the social, economic and political implications of judicial decisions, and hence their role in public governance. In both common law and "Romanist" jurisdictions, however, such motivations (sometimes referred to as "consequentialist arguments") must be duly grounded in social science expertise.
