Search

Spanish politicians have endured numerous attacks on their reputation, led by conservative parties and extra-parliamentary actors linked to the far-right (Pozas, 2024; Urías, 2024). This article examines the media coverage of criminal lawsuits against progressive politicians in cases suspicious of lawfare. Lawfare and mediafare appear as two intertwining ways of character assassination. This is because lawfare is not unidirectional, but relational; it only works if the media echoes it (De-Pádua-Andrade, 2018). Media coverage gives lawsuits the necessary "massiveness" for the character assassination to be effective (Bielsa; Peretti, 2019). Even if the targets are deemed innocent, the target's reputation and that of their parties can be damaged forever, often destroying their political career. To account for the complex intertwining between lawfare and mediafare, we have conducted a content analysis of 354 news items from three quality newspapers that represent a wide ideological spectrum: eldiario.es (left-wing), elpaís.com (centrist) and elmundo.es (conservative) and added the ultraconservative okdiario.com (Guerrero-Solé, 2022; Palau-Sampio; López-García, n.d.; Pérez, 2021). The article examines three cases that legal experts have qualified as prototypical examples of lawfare (Martín-Pallín, 2023; Montaner, 2023; Urías, 2024). These are the cases of progressive female politicians Irene Montero, former Minister of Equality; Ada Colau, former Mayor of Barcelona, and Mónica Oltra, former vice-president of Valencia's regional government. The analysis shows that mediafare operates through logos, ethos and pathos character attacks that question the politicians' reputation, credibility and emotional stability, leading to media rather than legal judgements of guilt. By portraying all politicians as corrupt, lawfare and mediafare contribute to the normalization of corruption and discredit of democratic politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of A&C - Administrative & Constitutional Law Review - Revista de Direito Administrativo e Constitucional is the property of A&C - Revista de Direito Administrativo & Constitucional (Instituto Bacellar) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Jurídica (0103-3506) is the property of Revista Juridica and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Law Studies Journal / Revista Novos Estudos Juridicos is the property of Novos Estudos Juridicos and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The aim of this paper is to analyze the conduct of the Guatemalan Constitutional Court - GCC - in its own context and history, and how it has positioned itself as a valuable political player in defining public policies and elections in Guatemala. As this paper shows, the growing influence of the GCC led to the politization of the appointment of its many benches throughout its history. This politization has resulted in radical shifts of its case law and a sacrifice of predictability. Yet, this historical analysis illustrates how the GCC, regardless of the many changes in the benches, has created constitutional judicial culture of value for indeterminism. It is through this indeterminism that the GCC has acted as a sort of political arbiter to maintain social and economic stability in a post-conflict reality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Jurídica (0103-3506) is the property of Revista Juridica and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of A&C - Administrative & Constitutional Law Review - Revista de Direito Administrativo e Constitucional is the property of A&C - Revista de Direito Administrativo & Constitucional (Instituto Bacellar) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Federal Supreme Court (which has the function of carrying out constitutional jurisdiction in Brazil) has been undergoing changes related to the application and interpretation of the Federal Constitution. This expansion of the role of the Federal Supreme Court is anchored in two basic points: first, the Judiciary is considered one of the safest means of guaranteeing legal certainty; and secondly, the Legislative Power has moved away from its role of representing the interests of the population and has become incapable of fulfilling obligations of justice and equality. Given this, this article, through a bibliographic and jurisprudential survey and a hermeneutic-dialectical epistemological approach, seeks to understand the Supremocracy, analyzing both the excess of action of the Federal Supreme Court, and its important role in guaranteeing fundamental rights.

Copyright of Revista Opinião Jurídica is the property of Revista Opiniao Juridica and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Direito e Práxis is the property of Editora da Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (EdUERJ) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Pravnik is the property of Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of State & Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

A “viragem neoconstitucionalista do direito” implicou mudanças paradigmáticas na teoria da eficácia dos direitos fundamentais, na medida em que engendrou um novo arquétipo exegético voltado para a força normativa da Constituição, cuja base fundante é o reconhecimento dos princípios como normas jurídicas. É nesse sentido que desponta o ativismo judicial, daí a pretensão do presente artigo de analisar tal fenômeno, comparando-o com os conceitos de judicialização da política e politização da justiça, de modo a poder traçar os limites exegéticos do protagonismo judicial no âmbito do Estado Democrático de Direito contemporâneo. Seu grande desafio é propor um equilíbrio entre a liberdade de conformação do legislador democrático e a efetividade dos direitos fundamentais. ABSTRACT The “neoconstitutionalistturn of law” implied paradigmatic changes in the theory of the effectiveness of fundamental rights, as it engendered a new exegetical archetype aimed at the normative force of the Constitution, whose founding basis is the recognition of principles as legal norms. It is in this sense that judicial activism emerges, hence the intention of this article to analyze this phenomenon, comparing it with the concepts of judicialization of politics and politicization of justice, in order to draw the exegetical limitsof judicial protagonism within the scope of the Contemporary Rule of Law. Its great challenge is to propose a balance between the freedom of conformation of the democratic legislator and the effectiveness of fundamental rights.

LEADERSHIP OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE US BASED ON AN ANALYSIS OF THE ACTIVITIES OF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS, JR. Chief Justice of the United States is a formal leader of the Supreme Court responsible for supervisinig Court’s administrative work, including his presiding over justices’ conferences and assigning opinion-writing to a justice in the majority. At the same time Chief Justice is representing the Court in relations with other branches of government, including membership in certain judicial institutions, assisting the president during his oath of Office, and presiding over the impeachment process of the chief executive. Called the top judicial officer in the United States, the Chief Justice seems to have enough power not only to lead the Court but also to determine its adjudication, protecting its integrity and impartiality. The reality, however, proves that the model of leadership and the scope of impact of Chief Justices on Court’s functioning depends on several inner and outer factors, therefore not every formal leader of the Court was its real leader. The aim of the analysis is to assess the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed to the Supreme Court by George W. Bush in 2005 and has held his office until today. Introducing four models of leadership of Chief Justices, the Author is willing to determine the role John Roberts plays in contemporary Court, analyzing the impact of his leadership skills and the circumstances under which he operates as the Chief Justice. The growing significance of the Supreme Court in American social, economic, and political life makes such an analysis even more interesting and necessary

Chief Justice of the United States is a formal leader of the Supreme Court responsible for supervisinig Court’s administrative work, including his presiding over justices’ conferences and assigning opinion-writing to a justice in the majority. At the same time Chief Justice is representing the Court in relations with other branches of government, including membership in certain judicial institutions, assisting the president during his oath of Office, and presiding over the impeachment process of the chief executive. Called the top judicial officer in the United States, the Chief Justice seems to have enough power not only to lead the Court but also to determine its adjudication, protecting its integrity and impartiality. The reality, however, proves that the model of leadership and the scope of impact of Chief Justices on Court’s functioning depends on several inner and outer factors, therefore not every formal leader of the Court was its real leader. The aim of the analysis is to assess the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed to the Supreme Court by George W. Bush in 2005 and has held his office until today. Introducing four models of leadership of Chief Justices, the Author is willing to determine the role John Roberts plays in contemporary Court, analyzing the impact of his leadership skills and the circumstances under which he operates as the Chief Justice. The growing significance of the Supreme Court in American social, economic, and political life makes such an analysis even more interesting and necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper seeks to assess the role that references to non-binding materials such as foreign law and extra-legal knowledge could play in the so-called judicialization of politics. While comparative law is far from manifesting its best interpretative potential in practice, the fact remains that many apex or other higher courts use it to strengthen the legitimacy of their decisions. Since foreign law does not carry any authoritative meaning within the framework of a national legal system, the act of resorting to it is therefore always a political gesture that can be, at one and the same time, decried as arbitrary or hailed as a fruitful tool of judicial dialogue and consensus building. For their part, extra-legal references raise the equally challenging question of knowing whether judges are well equipped to assess complex social issues that go beyond the mere context of a case. Reading and integrating such non-binding elements into judicial discourse poses a series of challenges for the judge before the task. My contribution will evaluate these challenges and will advance a number of conclusions regarding the potential perils of using hetero-referential arguments uncritically and instrumentally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is analyzed to what extend the battle of narratives between the powers demonstrates the weakening of democracy in the Brazilian political system, from the challenge raised by the phenomena of party hyperfragmentation, the judicialization of politics and supremocracy. The battle between the powers in the Brazilian institutional context is presented through the analysis of the political and judicial changes resulting from the STF's stance in the Impeachment process of former President Dilma Rousseff, Mensalão and Lava Jato´s Operation. Modified institutes at this juncture are related to the coalitions of party hyperfragmentation, the judicialization of politics, and the supremocracy. The research is qualitative bibliographic with analysis of studies on democratic theories and constitutional law, by Oscar Vilhena Vieira and the sociological research of Sérgio Abranches. It follows that debate is needed for the consolidation of a substantial democratic system based on respect for the principles of human dignity in order to avoid constitutional "malaise" and authoritarianism.

This article analyzes the General Action Plan (PGA) of the Public Attorney of the State of São Paulo (MP), an instrument that sets the priority annual performance targets for prosecutors, to examine: (i) the relationship between institutional policy and functional independence; (ii) the prosecutors view of the role of the MP and the implication of this for the judicialization of politics. It is a multiple case study with a qualitative methodology. The goals of the PGAs were classified and quantified. Semistructured interviews were also conducted with members of the MP. It is demonstrated that the PGA is conceived as an instrument to try to influence the executive branch's agenda and that the efficient establishment of an institutional policy: (i) depends on the interpretation of the concept of functional independence; (ii) could aggravate the judicialization framework of politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Sociologia e Política is the property of Revista de Sociologia e Politica and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Law’s autonomy from politics has been in decline. Theories have been formulated to provide explanations for the development. However, these debates have overlooked the role of judicial agency in the construction of the Court’s own fate. Judicial agency has a lot to determine when courts embark on their mission of embracing political circumstances surrounding them. The present paper argues that insistence on neutral principles by Legal Process School can be guiding for courts to devise judicial techniques that enable warranted appearance of neutrality. Two cases decided by the Israeli Supreme Court will be discussed to elaborate on the argument defended in the paper. In these cases, the Israeli Supreme Court constructs its institutional security by engaging in a principled line of reasoning across its evolving jurisprudence on the same political issue, namely by first exhausting more solid legal arguments and imposing conclusive constitutional resolutions once these less controversial decisions are implemented.

The relationship between legislative and judicial branches in constitutional democracies has been the subject of several academic debates. Nevertheless, this literature has made little reference to congresspeople’s role as active subjects in judicial scenarios, especially when they present complaints against legislation enacted during their incumbency. This study seeks to address the question of why members of the Colombian Congress make use of constitutional review to overturn laws that they took part in debating. Through the use of quantitative and qualitative analysis, this paper explains how the use of constitutional complaints by members of congress is not limited to a political strategy of opposition by independents and opposition parties, but also serves members of the governing coalition for at least three different purposes: i) to deviate from the political approach of the Executive bill when they do not agree with the contents or when the reforms affect the interests of their constituency; ii) to “clean up” Executive bills of content introduced by the opposition during the law-making process; and iii) to advance certain points of their own political agenda, avoiding the political cost of opposing the reform as it passes through the legislative process.

Copyright of Revista de Direito Internacional Econômico e Tributário (RDIET) is the property of Revista de Direito Internacional Economico e Tributario (RDIET) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article has as its theme the imbricated relationship between the judicialization of politics and democracy and its general objective is to analyze, in the light of Brazilian law, how political decisions migrated to the judicial sphere, intensifying the process of judicialization of politics in Brazil after the redemocratization. The hypothesis suggested is that in the context of neoconstitutionalism, there was an amplification of the subjective interpretation of the constitutional charters, which culminated in the expansion of the decision- -making power of the legal field in relation to the other powers, thus corroborating the rise of the phenomenon of political judicialization. Furthermore, the crisis of representativeness of political powers adds to the phenomenon of judicialization, which led to the protagonism of the judiciary from the phenomenon of judicialization. The research used the deductive method, which starts from a generalization for a particularized question, and as a research technique the bibliography, which is developed from primary and secondary sources, that is, from the Federal Constitution and sparse norms and from literature available regarding the issue. It was found that the judicialization of politics is a worldwide phenomenon, of which judicial activism is one of its consequences. If, on the one hand, urgent political issues are getting a faster response from the Judiciary, on the other hand it must be pointed out that these decisions have a democratic deficit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Opinião Jurídica is the property of Revista Opiniao Juridica and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Ius et Praxis (07172877) is the property of Universidad de Talca and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The role of journalism in the judicialization of politics is the topic addressed in this interdisciplinary study that seeks to reflect on relations and tensions between the Press and the Judiciary in the formation of consensus and perception of politics. Based on evidence from the coverage of the Lava Jato case in the Brazilian mainstream and alternative press, questions about the rhetoric of the "Fourth Power" and the sources of information in the formation of the public agenda are addressed. Such aspects indicate veiled and unveiled conflicts in the exercise of journalism, which, on the road to judicialization, reinforce the consensus of corruption and the delegitimization of politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article I present an interpretation of Carl Schmitt's theses presented in his work Der Hüter der Verfassung, The Guardian of the Constitution. Initially, (2) I present the Schmittian definition of "guardian of the Constitution", as opposed to a "lord and sovereign of the Constitution", comparing it with contemporary approaches to constitutional theory. I then use these concepts to discuss Schmitt's theses on (3) the role of the Reich president as guardian of the Constitution; (4) the defense of a self-restrained stance in the judicial review of the constitutionality of laws; and (5) his criticism of the "judicialization of politics". Finally, (6) I use these theses to discuss the role of the Brazilian Supreme Court and question its status as "guardian of the Constitution". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents solidarity service learning (PHC) as a pertinent pedagogical strategy to address, from university social responsibility (RSU), the judicialization of politics and the moralization of law, as a particular challenge, of legal offices, understood as scenarios of practical training of law students. This article is the result of research on the project called: "University Social Innovation Laboratory - UNILAB", which, with the solidarity service learning mediated by Information and Communication Technologies (TICS) forms a mutual learning community for the development of the community and generation of competences for political action and apprehension of citizen values, necessary to mature the social responsibility of the law student and the strengthening of the communal organization as the maximum expression of organized citizen participation in the District of Cartagena. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Constitutional History / Giornale di Storia Costituzionale is the property of Giornale di Storia Costituzionale (Journal of Constitutional History) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Campo Jurídico is the property of Revista Campo Juridico and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Brasileira de Estudos Politicos is the property of Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (Revista Brasileira de Estudos Politicos) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista SAAP is the property of Sociedad Argentina de Analisis Politico and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Plural - Revista de Ciências Sociais is the property of Revista Plural and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Direito GV is the property of Fundacao Getulio Vargas and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

How does the institutional design of the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) interfere in the decision-making process of the conflicts that are submitted to it? STF's Justices, as individually responsible of each proceeding in progress, can strategically decide through available procedural resources what and when to bring them to trial individually or collectively. This article inserts itself in this debate to question the independence of its Justices before the other political actors, but also before (or against) their peers, considering the possibilities of interaction of strategic models to the Brazilian case, before the constitutional, legal and regimental rules that establish the performance of the members of the Court. The general hypothesis is that the normative design of the Court assures multiple options for magistrates in the conduct of judicial proceedings, promoting strategies aimed at maximizing the winning chances of their preferences, as well as reducing their respective decision costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Subject of constant social debate and academic reflection, this paper starts from epistemological expression of “politicization of justice”, distinguishing it from judicialization of politics. In the Brazilian case, the consolidation of democratic institutions has suffered of a big influence of international jurists, specially from German and Portuguese ones, that, in certain way, permeated the relationship between the constitutional three Powers and ways of control with mechanisms that ended up by influencing the own condition of acting of its powers. It presents how the Executive Power’s typical decisions has found a strong barrier of Judiciary Power and how the exercise of the jurisdiction has also exacerbated its power in political decisions. It presents how these decisions, under the aura of the “social justice” exercise and of the fundamental rights guarantee, also extrapolate its original powers, specially by the Superior Federal Tribunal – the Brazilian constitutional supreme court – when exercises the guarantee of constitutionality of the national juridical law, even more when typically politics decisions are raised to the Judiciary Power.

In law, normativism and pragmatism have always been under tension and this has been revealed in many different ways. One of its manifestations can be found in adjudication, where the technical/juridical role of the judge has, in many countries, assumed political contours, a phenomenon described as “judicialization of politics”. This paper will examine the vanishing boundaries between the technical and the political, using Brazil as an example, and will analyze the hypothesis that the existence of clear borderlines, in these terms, is thing of the past. The formalist assumption that judges only subsume facts into abstract rules has been ruled out by most scholars, but the institutional design and the concept of separation of powers that come with it have not. The investigation of the courts’ current practices and the consideration of legal theory show that these limits should be redesigned.

The article discusses the occurrence of a new group of actors in the field of pursuing military conflicts, namely the national courts. We present on the case of the Supreme Court of the State Israel that the process described as judicialization gained importance even in the issue of decision-making on pursuing military conflicts. We point out that in order to adequately grasp the position of the Supreme Court and its influence, it is necessary to consider also the acceptance of the Court’s case-law from the side of other important actors in the political system of the State Israel.