Many people must be wondering how it is possible that Poland, not so long ago hailed for its exemplary transition from a communist dictatorship to a liberal democracy, could have so swiftly descended into authoritarianism via a crisis in the rule of law. The majority of commentators point to the size and ferocity of the attack on those mechanisms meant to safeguard the rule of law, whereas few focus on the weakness of their defence. This article attempts to redress that imbalance. The crucial facts of the Polish crisis are first presented, and the nature of both the attacks on the rule of law in Poland and the measures taken in its defence are then presented. In describing their defence, this article not only draws on Nicholas Barber’s concept of the self-defence of institutions, but attempts to improve upon it in the light of the Polish crisis. Further in the article, I argue that one of the reasons for the success of the assault on the rule of law is the formalistic legal mindset that is prevalent among Polish lawyers. This mindset is characterized by a reductionism of the interpretative premises to be applied when deciding constitutional cases. This reductionism is conspicuous in the application of bright-line rules with no consideration of general constitutional principles. I argue that the development of a robust, non-formalistic methodology of legal decision-making is a prerequisite for a successful defence of the rule of law.

许多人一定想知道，不久前波兰因从共产专政向自由民主的模范转变而受到称赞的波兰，有可能如此之快地通过法治危机而沦为威权主义的可能性。大多数评论员指出，对旨在维护法治的那些机制的攻击的规模和严重性，而很少有人关注其防御的弱点。本文试图纠正这种不平衡。首先介绍了波兰危机的关键事实，然后介绍了对波兰法治的攻击的性质以及为捍卫法治所采取的措施。在描述他们的辩护时，本文不仅借鉴了尼古拉斯·巴伯（Nicholas Barber）关于机构自卫的概念，而且还尝试根据波兰的危机对其进行改进。在本文的进一步内容中，我认为对法治的攻击成功的原因之一是波兰律师普遍存在的形式主义法律观念。这种心态的特征是在决定宪法案件时应采用解释性前提的简化主义。在不考虑一般宪法原则的情况下，这种简化主义在运用明线规则时是显而易见的。我认为，建立强有力的，非形式化的法律决策方法是成功捍卫法治的前提。这种心态的特征是在决定宪法案件时应采用解释性前提的简化主义。在不考虑一般宪法原则的情况下，这种简化主义在运用明线规则时是显而易见的。我认为，建立强有力的，非形式化的法律决策方法是成功捍卫法治的前提。这种心态的特征是在决定宪法案件时应采用解释性前提的简化主义。在不考虑一般宪法原则的情况下，这种简化主义在运用明线规则时是显而易见的。我认为，建立强有力的，非形式化的法律决策方法是成功捍卫法治的前提。