The theme of this book is judicial activism in industrialized democracies, with a chapter on the changing political roles of the courts in the Soviet Union. Eleven contributors describe the extent to which the highest courts in their country of expertise have embraced the making of public policy.
This volume offers different perspectives on judicial practice in the European and American contexts, both arguably characterized in the last decades by the emergence of novel normative and even policy arguments by judges. The central question deserving the attention of the contributors concerns the degree in which judicial exercises in practical reasoning may amount to forms of judicial usurpation of the legislative function by courts. Since different views as to the nature and scope of legal reasoning lead to different degrees of tolerance regarding what should be admissible to courts, that same nature and scope is thoroughly debated. The main disciplinary approach is that of general jurisprudence, but the contributions take stock of other disciplines in which judicial activism has been addressed, namely positive theories of judicial behavior. Accordingly, the book also explores the development of interdisciplinary dialogue about the theme.
This book investigates judicial deference to the administration in judicial review, a concept and legal practice that can be found to a greater or lesser degree in every constitutional system. In each system, deference functions differently, because the positioning of the judiciary with regard to the separation of powers, the role of the courts as a mechanism of checks and balances, and the scope of judicial review differ. In addition, the way deference works within the constitutional system itself is complex, multi-faceted and often covert. Although judicial deference to the administration is a topical theme in comparative administrative law, a general examination of national systems is still lacking. As such, a theoretical and empirical review is called for. Accordingly, this book presents national reports from 15 jurisdictions, ranging from Argentina, Canada and the US, to the EU. Constituting the outcome of the 20th General Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law, held in Fukuoka, Japan in July 2018, it offers a valuable and unique resource for the study of comparative administrative law.
This book is the first application of the comparative method to the analysis of both the basic features of judicial process and their evolution and profound transformation in Europe and America. Cappelletti discusses the challenges facing the courts of justice and other adjudicatory agencies, and evaluates the solutions adopted by contemporary legal systems.
What is understood by judicial activism in different jurisdictions? Beyond a superficial agreement, are we talking about the same phenomenon across countries and systems (or over time), and to what extent? This book seeks to articulate a comparative perspective on judicial activism, bringing together a selection of theoretical and empirical studies across different socio-political and institutional contexts. The chapters not only demonstrate the complexity of the concept, but also illustrate the different meanings of judicial activism across different types of political regimes, legal systems, and judicial institutions. The book looks at three examples from western democracies with common law systems (the U.S., the U.K., and Canada), and then at six examples from civil law systems in Latin American countries with very different experiences with judicial activism, democracy, and liberal constitutionalism: Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Paraguay, and Venezuela. These case studies are analyzed with reference to a common conceptual framework, assisted by a beginning theoretical essay and two concluding cross-national studies highlighting different theoretical and methodological approaches. This book contributes to current debates on a major topic in comparative law and courts research that, despite its importance in and outside the scholarly world, remains subject to significant debate. The book should be useful for students, teachers, and researchers across a variety of disciplines - including Constitutional Law, Comparative Law, Comparative Politics, Judicial Politics, and Sociolegal Studies.
This study investigates the phenomenon of judicial activism from a comparative perspective by examining the highest constitutional courts in India and Germany: the Supreme Court and the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court) respectively. In addition to answering the question of what role these courts play in their countries' political institutional set-ups, the study explains to what extent they can be classed as powerful. Historical neo-institutionalism forms the study's theoretical basis, which it deploys in endeavouring to understand the courts' development and in identifying critical junctures in their histories.
ÔThis well-constructed, and well-written, collection fills a gap in the scholarship. It offers a rounded and plausible picture of the CourtÕs role in Europe, engaging with the complexity of the law without losing sight of the bigger political picture. Well-contextualised, critical, but nuanced, discussions of the role of rights, economics, science, and institutions, and of the important particularities of EU adjudication, will make this volume unmissable for those interested in the political role of the Court of Justice of the EU.Õ Ð Gareth Davies, VU University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands This book delves into the rationale, components of, and responses to accusations of judicial activism at the European Court of Justice. Detailed chapters from academics, practitioners and stakeholders bring diverse perspectives on a range of factors Ð from access rules to institutional design and to substantive functions Ð influencing the European CourtÕs political role. Each of the contributing authors invites the reader to approach the debate on the role of the Court in terms of a constantly evolving set of interactions between the EU judiciary, the European and national political spheres, as well as a multitude of other actors vested in competing legitimacy claims. The book questions the political role of the Court as much as it stresses the opportunities Ð and corresponding responsibilities Ð that the CourtÕs case law offers to independent observers, political institutions and civil society organisations. Judicial Activism at the European Court of Justice will appeal to researchers and graduate students as well as to EU and national officials.
Since 2007, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has emerged as a dominant force in Pakistani politics through its hyper-active use of judicial review, or the power to overrule Parliament’s laws and the Prime Minister’s acts. This hyper-activism was on display during the Supreme Court’s unilateral disqualification of Prime Minister Yousef Raza Gilani in 2012 under the leadership of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry. Despite the Supreme Court’s practical adoption of restraint subsequent to the retirement of Chief Justice Chaudhry in 2013, the Court has once again disqualified a prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, due to allegations of corruption in 2017. While many critics have focused on the substance of the Court’s decisions in these cases, sufficient focus is not paid to the amorphous case-selection process of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. In order to compare the relatively unregulated process of case-selection in Pakistan to the more structured processes utilized by the Supreme Courts of the United States’ and India, this book aims to understand the historical roots of judicial review in each country dating back to the colonial era extending through the foundational period of each nation impacting present-day jurisprudence. As a first in its kind, this study comparatively examines these periods of history in order to contextualize a practical prescription to standardize the case-selection process in the Supreme Court of Pakistan in a way that retains the Court’s overall power while limiting its involvement in purely political issues. This publication offers a critical and comparative view of the Supreme Court of Pakistan’s recent involvement in political disputes due to the lack of a discerning case-selection system that has otherwise been adopted by the Supreme Courts of India and the United States’ to varying degrees. It will be of interest to academics in the fields of Asian Law, South Asian Politics and Law and Comparative Law.