Comparative Analysis of the Work of János Zlinszky and Wilhelm Röpke

The purpose of this paper is to map the scientific thinking of the jurist, János Zlinszky (1928–2015) and to reveal his method of scientific argumentation as a constitutional judge. To this end I will make a comparison with the method of an economist, Wilhelm Röpke (1899-1966) mainly focusing on the topic of protection of families. I will build on the standpoint and argumentation articulated by Zlinszky in his dissenting and concurring opinions as a constitutional judge and on his writings in ethics and legal history.1 Zlinszky was a Hungarian, Catholic jurist, lawyer and member of the first Constitutional Court of Hungary (1989-1998). He lived and practiced in an era when Hungary’s main goal was to carry out the transition of the country from national socialism to democracy. Zlinszky’s first aim as a jurist was to realize the legal transition of Hungary from totalitarianism to the rule of law. He promoted the transition as member of the first Constitutional Court and also in the field of education by establishing the Faculty of Law of Pázmány Péter Catholic University in 1995. A Catholic law university in this era, after a long period when there was no freedom of religion and conscience in Hungary and no real values were represented and transmitted by the state and either by the education institutions, was essentially important.2 Zlinszky as a lawyer placed high emphasize on economic studies. Already at the beginning of the law faculty, he has launched a separate economic institution and he himself gained deep economic knowledge. So interdisciplinary was very close to his