Search

Recent confrontations between constitutional courts and parliamentary majorities in several European countries have attracted international interest in the relationship between the judiciary and the legislature.Some political actors have argued that courts have assumed too much power and politics has been extremely judicialized. Yet the extent to which this aggregation of power may have constrained the dominant political actors'room for manoeuvre has never been examined accurately and systematically. This volume fills this gap in the literature. To explore the diversity and measure the strength of judicial decisions, the authors have elaborated a new methodology that is intended to give a more nuanced picture of the practice of constitutional adjudication in Europe. The work opens with an assessment of the existing literature on empirical analysis of judicial decisions with a special focus on Western Europe and a short summary of the methodology of the project. This is followed by 11 country studies and a concluding chapter providing a comprehensive comparative analysis of the results. A further ten countries are explored in the counterpart volume to this book: Constitutional Review in Central and Eastern Europe: Judicial-Legislative Relations in Comparative Perspective.The collection will be an invaluable resource for those working in the areas of empirical legal research and comparative constitutional law, as well as political scientists interested in judicial politics.

Recent confrontations between constitutional courts and parliamentary majorities in several European countries have attracted international interest in the relationship between the judiciary and the legislature.Some political actors have argued that courts have assumed too much power and politics has been extremely judicialized. This volume accurately and systematically examines the extent to which this aggregation of power may have constrained the dominant political actors'room for manoeuvre. To explore the diversity and measure the strength of judicial decisions, the contributors to this work have elaborated a methodology to give a more nuanced picture of the practice of constitutional adjudication in Central and Eastern Europe between 1990 and 2020. The work opens with an assessment of the existing literature on empirical analysis of judicial decisions with a special focus on the Central and Eastern European region, and a short summary of the methodology of the project. This is followed by ten country studies and a concluding chapter providing a comprehensive comparative analysis of the results. A further nine countries are explored in the counterpart volume to this book: Constitutional Review in Western Europe: Judicial-Legislative Relations in Comparative Perspective.The collection will be an invaluable resource for those working in the areas of empirical legal research and comparative constitutional law, as well as political scientists interested in judicial politics.

Já na introdução, a relação problemática entre celeridade e segurança é posta à prova. Isso porque o processo indica caminhos e, por conseguinte, quer ser um meio seguro para se chegar a um fim. Infelizmente, a demora existe. Uma degeneração no processo. Ela dificulta ou aniquila o caminhar, impedindo que o processo seja o que tem de ser: um caminho seguro e tempestivo para a entrega da prestação jurisdicional. Um dos meios para que o problema possa ser enfrentado é a flexibilização procedimental feita pelo juiz ou, em outras palavras, a'adequação formal judicial'. Essa flexibilização pode (ou deve!) ser feita pelo juiz? Quais os fundamentos e requisitos? Isso não seria fonte de insegurança? O livro enfrenta essencialmente essas questões. A partir de uma narrativa histórica, é demonstrado como evoluiu a atuação do magistrado na condução do processo em Portugal. Do juiz árbitro ao juiz ativo, do juiz ativo ao juiz cooperante, passando finalmente ao juiz gestor. Já que somos herdeiros da tradição jurídica portuguesa, isso diz muito para nós. Em seguida, o autor analisa o direito vigente em Portugal, e não para tecer comentários, apenas. Toma-o como ponto de partida para construir uma teoria geral da adequação formal judicial. As respostas construídas forneceram novas perguntas e ideias sobre tema tão instigante. Nelas percebem-se, de modo nítido, os pressupostos, os limites e as formas de controle da adaptação procedimental pelo juiz. Adaptado do prefácio de Beclaute Silva.

Provides diverse content covering the gamut of law subjects, including current information on nearly 5,000 legal topics.

The interaction between military and civilian courts, the political power that legal prerogatives can provide to the armed forces, and the difficult process civilian politicians face in reforming military justice remain glaringly under-examined, despite their implications for the quality and survival of democracy. This book breaks new ground by providing a theoretically rich, global examination of the operation and reform of military courts in democratic countries. Drawing on a newly created dataset of 120 countries over more than two centuries, it presents the first comprehensive picture of the evolution of military justice across states and over time. Combined with qualitative historical case studies of Colombia, Portugal, Indonesia, Fiji, Brazil, Pakistan, and the United States, the book presents a new framework for understanding how civilian actors are able to gain or lose legal control of the armed forces. The book's findings have important lessons for scholars and policymakers working in the fields of democracy, civil-military relations, human rights, and the rule of law.

In the past few years, constitutional courts have been presented with new challenges. The world financial crisis, the new wave of terrorism, mass migration and other country-specific problems have had wide-ranging effects on the old and embedded constitutional standards and judicial constructions. This book examines how, if at all, these unprecedented social, economic and political problems have affected constitutional review in Europe. As the courts'response must conform with EU law and in some cases international law, analysis extends to the related jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. The collection adopts a common analytical structure to examine how the relevant challenges have been addressed in ten country specific case studies. Alongside these, constitutional experts frame the research within the theoretical understanding of the constitutional difficulties of the day in Europe. Finally, a comparative chapter examines the effects of multilevel constitutionalism and identifies general European trends.This book will be essential reading for academics and researchers working in the areas of constitutional law, comparative law and jurisprudence.

This topical and important book identifies the short to medium-term economic, financial and social consequences of Brexit. Containing perspectives from leading thinkers across legal, economic and financial fields, it considers both the general effect of UK withdrawal on the European integration process, and the specific impact on the free movement of capital, goods and people. Addressing the main areas within both the UK and the EU that can and will be affected by Brexit, including the financial sector, immigration, social rights and social security, After Brexit: Consequences for the European Union will make fascinating reading for all those currently engaged in the study and practice of Law, Economics, Finance, Political Science, Philosophy, History and International Affairs.

This is a completely revised and updated second edition of Rights Before Courts (2005, paper edition 2008). This book carefully examines the most recent wave of the emergence and case law of activist constitutional courts: those that were set up after the fall of communism in Central and Eastern Europe. In contrast to most other analysts and scholars, the study does not take for granted that they are a “force for good” but rather subjects them to critical scrutiny against a background of wide-ranging comparative and theoretical analysis of constitutional judicial review in the modern world. The new edition takes in new case law and constitutional developments in the decade since the first edition, including considering the recent disturbing disempowerment of the Hungarian Constitutional Court (which previously was probably the most powerful constitutional court in the world) resulting from the fundamental constitutional changes brought about by the Fidesz government.

This book explores the objectives pursued in donor programs, the methods used to advance them, and the underlying assumptions and strategies. It emphasizes the unexpected and sometimes unpleasant consequences of ignoring not only political and societal constraints but also advances in our technical approaches to performance improvement, the one area where the First World has a comparative advantage. The geographic scope of the work is broad, incorporating examples from Eastern and Central Europe, Latin America, Africa, and the Asia-Pacific region as well as from several First World nations. Justice Reform and Development examines First World assistance to justice or'rule of law'reforms in developing and transitional societies, arguing that its purported failure is vastly exaggerated, largely because of unrealistic expectations as to what could be accomplished. Change nonetheless is needed if the programs are to continue and would be best based on targeting specific performance problems, incorporation of donor countries'experience with their own reforms, and greater attention to relevant research. While contributing to an on-going debate among practitioners and academics involved in justice programs, this book will also be accessible to readers with little exposure to the topics, especially advanced undergraduate and graduate students in law, political science and areas studies.

This book examines the complex relationship that exists between the construction of judicial power, and the institutional characteristics of the courts and their regime setting. It examines the intriguing connection between the construction of judicial power on the one hand, and the institutional characteristics of the courts and regime setting on the other. The book asks whether courts are rendered powerful by virtue of their institutional characteristics or by a supportive, perhaps acquiescent, regime setting. By analyzing the historical pathways of courts in Uganda, Tanzania and Malawi, this book argues that the emergence of judicial power since the colonial period, though fraught with many challenges, presents a unique opportunity for consolidating democracy. The book examines in detail the significant political decisions of the upper-level courts in Uganda, Tanzania and Malawi from the colonial period to the present day, analyzing them in relation to changes in the political environment over time. Analysis of these decisions is also supplemented by in-depth interviews with judges, lawyers and other important stakeholders in the judicial processes. This book demonstrates that even in the most challenging regime environments, effective institutions and determined individuals can push back against interference and issue politically powerful, independent decisions but the way in which judiciaries respond to this regime pressure varies enormously across countries and regions.

Most Americans think that judges should be, and are, generalists who decide a wide array of cases. Nonetheless, we now have specialized courts in many key policy areas. Specializing the Courts provides the first comprehensive analysis of this growing trend toward specialization in the federal and state court systems. Lawrence Baum incisively explores the scope, causes, and consequences of judicial specialization in four areas that include most specialized courts: foreign policy and national security, criminal law, economic issues involving the government, and economic issues in the private sector. Baum examines the process by which court systems in the United States have become increasingly specialized and the motives that have led to the growth of specialization. He also considers the effects of judicial specialization on the work of the courts by demonstrating that under certain conditions, specialization can and does have fundamental effects on the policies that courts make. For this reason, the movement toward greater specialization constitutes a major change in the judiciary.

Constitutionalism is the permanent quest to control state power, of which the judicial review of legislation is a prime example. Although the judicial review of legislation is increasingly common in modern societies, it is not a finished project. This device still raises questions as to whether judicial review is justified, and how it may be structured. Yet, judicial review's justification and its scope are seldom addressed in the same study, thereby making for an inconvenient divorce of these two related avenues of study. To narrow the divide, the object of this work is quite straightforward. Namely, is the idea of judicial review defensible, and what influences its design and scope? This book addresses these matters by comparing the judicial review of legislation in the United Kingdom (the Human Rights Act of 1998), the Netherlands (the Halsema Proposal of 2002) and the Constitution of South Africa of 1996. These systems present valuable material to study the issues raised by judicial review. The Netherlands is of particular interest as its Constitution still prohibits the constitutional review of acts of parliament, while allowing treaty review of such acts. The Halsema Proposal wants to even out this difference by allowing the courts also to apply constitutional norms to legislation and not only to international norms. The Human Rights Act and the South African Constitution also present interesting questions that will make their study worthwhile. One can think of the issue of dialogue between the legislature and the judiciary. This topic enjoys increased attention in the United Kingdom but is somewhat underexplored in South African thought on judicial review. These and similar issues are studied in each of the three systems, to not only gain a better understanding of the systems as such, but also of judicial review in general.

This volume focuses on a highly challenging aspect of all European democracies, namely the issue of combining guarantees of judicial independence and mechanisms of judicial accountability. It does so by filling the gap in European scholarship between the two policy sectors of enlargement and judicial cooperation and by taking full stock of an interdisciplinary literature, spanning from comparative politics, socio-legal studies and European studies. Judicial Accountabilities in New Europe presents an insightful account of the judicial reforms adopted by new member States to embed the principle of the rule of law in their democratic institutions, along with the guidelines of quality of justice promoted by European institutions in all member States.

Challenging the conventional wisdom that constitutional courts are the best device that democratic systems have for the protection of individual rights, Wojciech Sadurski examines carefully the most recent wave of activist constitutional courts: those that have emerged after the fall of communism in Central and Eastern Europe. In contrast to most other analysts and scholars he does not take for granted that they are a “force for the good”, but rather subjects them to critical scrutiny against the background of a wide-ranging comparative and theoretical analysis of constitutional judicial review in the modern world. He shows that, in the region of Central and Eastern Europe, their record in protecting constitutional rights has been mixed, and their impact upon the vibrancy of democratic participation and public discourse about controversial issues often negative. Sadurski urges us to reconsider the frequently unthinking enthusiasm for the imposition of judicial limits upon constitutional democracy. In the end, his reflections go to the very heart of the fundamental dilemma of constitutionalism and political theory: how best to find the balance between constitutionalism and democracy? The lively, if imperfect, democracies in Central and Eastern Europe provide a fascinating terrain for raising this question, and testing traditional answers. This innovative, wide-ranging and thought-provoking book will become essential reading for scholars and students alike in the fields of comparative constitutionalism and political theory, particularly for those with an interest in legal and political developments in the postcommunist world.

In countries and supranational entities around the globe, constitutional reform has transferred an unprecedented amount of power from representative institutions to judiciaries. The constitutionalization of rights and the establishment of judicial review are widely believed to have benevolent and progressive origins, and significant redistributive, power-diffusing consequences. Ran Hirschl challenges this conventional wisdom.Drawing upon a comprehensive comparative inquiry into the political origins and legal consequences of the recent constitutional revolutions in Canada, Israel, New Zealand, and South Africa, Hirschl shows that the trend toward constitutionalization is hardly driven by politicians'genuine commitment to democracy, social justice, or universal rights. Rather, it is best understood as the product of a strategic interplay among hegemonic yet threatened political elites, influential economic stakeholders, and judicial leaders. This self-interested coalition of legal innovators determines the timing, extent, and nature of constitutional reforms.Hirschl demonstrates that whereas judicial empowerment through constitutionalization has a limited impact on advancing progressive notions of distributive justice, it has a transformative effect on political discourse. The global trend toward juristocracy, Hirschl argues, is part of a broader process whereby political and economic elites, while they profess support for democracy and sustained development, attempt to insulate policymaking from the vicissitudes of democratic politics.