Sovereign presidential lawfare in the populist context

This article develops the concept of “sovereign presidential lawfare” through a case study of the 2015–2024 Kamiński and Wąsik case in Poland. It reconstructs how President Andrzej Duda’s use of the pardon power, through a pre-conviction “individual abolition” in 2015, became a tool for restructuring relations between the executive and the judiciary. The analysis situates the case within a broader conflict between a normativist understanding of constitutional authority, advanced by the Supreme Court and ordinary courts, and a decisionist understanding, endorsed by the President and a politically captured Constitutional Court. Drawing on contemporary readings of Carl Schmitt, the article argues that pardon powers can be repurposed to suspend judicial processes, generate de facto immunities, and reconfigure accountability without formal constitutional amendment.The article makes three contributions. First, it identifies a subtype of presidential lawfare distinct from self-protective criminal lawfare. Second, it demonstrates how constitutionally grounded prerogatives, especially those traditionally understood as exceptional or symbolic, can operate as instruments of structural constitutional change. Third, it conceptualises this dynamic as a shift from commissarial to sovereign uses of executive power.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Legal Ethics
Published
2026-06-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/1460728x.2026.2694288
Primary Topic
Judicial and Constitutional Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Sovereign presidential lawfare in the populist context

Michał Stambulski
Legal Ethics
Judicial and Constitutional Studies
article

Sovereign presidential lawfare in the populist context

Michał Stambulski
article en

Abstract

This article develops the concept of “sovereign presidential lawfare” through a case study of the 2015–2024 Kamiński and Wąsik case in Poland. It reconstructs how President Andrzej Duda’s use of the pardon power, through a pre-conviction “individual abolition” in 2015, became a tool for restructuring relations between the executive and the judiciary. The analysis situates the case within a broader conflict between a normativist understanding of constitutional authority, advanced by the Supreme Court and ordinary courts, and a decisionist understanding, endorsed by the President and a politically captured Constitutional Court. Drawing on contemporary readings of Carl Schmitt, the article argues that pardon powers can be repurposed to suspend judicial processes, generate de facto immunities, and reconfigure accountability without formal constitutional amendment.The article makes three contributions. First, it identifies a subtype of presidential lawfare distinct from self-protective criminal lawfare. Second, it demonstrates how constitutionally grounded prerogatives, especially those traditionally understood as exceptional or symbolic, can operate as instruments of structural constitutional change. Third, it conceptualises this dynamic as a shift from commissarial to sovereign uses of executive power.

Legal Ethics
Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Judicial and Constitutional Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.