Aristotle identified deliberative, magistrate, and judicial functions of power—without actually splitting them into separate branches. Locke argued for a separation, but only into legislative and executive powers. Montesquieu, being a good sport, nudged him gently: “Bro, you forgot the judicial one.” Then Rousseau chimed in with the idea that the judiciary shouldn’t be a separate branch at all. Centuries of debate got a pencil underline from Madison, who introduced the idea of checks and balances among the three branches. And thank God it was Madison who drew the line—because if it were Bentham, chances are there wouldn’t be any branches at all. Least of all a judicial one.

Modern Ukrainian thinkers have added a few thoughts of their own to this ongoing discourse. One especially cherished idea is that the government needs to be purged of devils and filled with decent, value-driven people instead. Another hot topic is the involvement of international experts in judicial selection: one intellectual camp sees this as foreign interference; the other says removing international experts sounds suspiciously like Putin’s rhetoric.

So here we are, asking no one’s permission, barging into this metaphysical debate with very serious faces and intentions.

The Dead Lawyers Society, with the support of the EU’s PRAVO-Justice Project, is setting off on a journey through the mental mazes of people who not only know how to explain things but have also managed to understand a thing or two themselves. At the very least, they’ve realized that dividing people into devils and angels, internationals and nationals—or any other “us vs. them” polarity—does not bring us closer to a strong judicial system. It pulls us farther away.

We’ve invited thoughtful and consistent people who don’t think in tweets but in long, complex concepts; people who’ve seen other systems besides the judicial one; and, finally, people who can debate with intellectual equals rather than shout slogans into the void. Together with them, we’ll soon be recording a few podcasts.

Our pompously proclaimed journey through the judicial system is not, contrary to what some may think, a quest for quick and easy answers. No, our aim is to build a calm and — dare we say it — intellectual dialogue around hard questions:

Who are our moral authorities? Do such people exist within the judicial system?
Should the (Ukrainian) judiciary be weak, as the authors of The Federalist Papers once hinted?
If it should be strong, then what makes it strong—and what weakens it?
Does judicial reform ever end, or is permanent reform the only way to meet the demands of a modern world?
Is integrity the answer to life, the universe, and selection committees?
Are judges the only ones in the judicial system, and who are these other mystery folks?
What will the judicial system look like in 10 years?
Will anyone besides us actually watch this podcast?

And no, we don’t plan to chisel answers into marble à la Madison and Hamilton in The Federalist. Nor are we offering advice or drafting grand visions. Frankly, we don’t even know what we’ll discover through this small project, and we’d rather keep it that way—so we’re ready for the unexpected in this worldview odyssey.

We are Odysseus, searching for home. And so our ship boldly sails into the open seas of judicial reform, lapping the shores of the Continent of the Mightiest Branch.

…and after all, we’re only ordinary men.

But to make sense of it all in the end, we’ll need you aboard.

Spare us ten minutes, dear sisters and brothers—

and take our mighty little survey:

*This publication was prepared by the Dead Lawyers Society with support from a grant provided by the EU Project “PRAVO-Justice.” The content is the sole responsibility of the Dead Lawyers Society and does not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.