Loading...

Judicial Activism in Comparative Perspective

by Lori Hausegger (Editor) Raul Urribarri (Editor)
©2024 Edited Collection X, 320 Pages

Summary

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.

Table Of Contents

  • Cover
  • Title
  • Copyright
  • About the author
  • About the book
  • This eBook can be cited
  • Contents
  • List of Illustrations and Tables
  • Acknowledgments
  • Chapter 1. Studying Judicial Activism in Comparative Perspective
  • Chapter 2. Judicial Activism in Comparative Law and Politics
  • Chapter 3. The Complementary Use of Judicial Activism and Restraint in the United States Supreme Court
  • Chapter 4. If You Give a Mouse a Cookie, He Might Want a Glass of Milk: Judicial Activism in the United Kingdom
  • Chapter 5. Judicial Activism in Canada: Overturning Precedent at the Lower Court Level
  • Chapter 6. Judicial Activism as the (Im)proper Use of Judicial Powers: A Look at the Colombian Constitutional Court
  • Chapter 7. Accountability Function and Rights Realization: An Examination of Costa Rica’s Assertive Apex Court
  • Chapter 8. Judicial Activism as a Threat to the Rule of Law
  • Chapter 9. Authoritarian Judicial Activism: A Look at the Venezuelan Case under Chavismo
  • Chapter 10. Judicial Activism in Paraguay: A Reactive Form of Compensatory Justice
  • Chapter 11. Judicial Activism in Human Rights: IACtHR, Conventionality Control, and the Mexican Supreme Court
  • Chapter 12. Measuring Judicial Legitimacy as an Explanatory Factor of Judicial Activism
  • Chapter 13. An Institutional Approach to Judicial Activism
  • Chapter 14. Concluding Remarks: Towards a Comparative Theory of Judicial Activism
  • Notes on Contributors
  • Index

Acknowledgments

First, we would like to thank all our contributors who, despite the difficulties of the last few years, believed in the project and participated in its different iterations, all the way to completion. Special thanks to Richard Pacelle, who pioneered both this project and the new Book Series where it belongs, and who supported this project throughout all its phases.

This project started in 2020, with a collaborative ‘conference within a conference’ at the Southern Political Science Association Annual Meeting in San Juan, Puerto Rico, followed by an online workshop hosted at the 2021 Annual Meeting a year later. We would like to thank the Association for the opportunity, and acknowledge the input of all our participants in the conference. We also thank our respective home institutions - Boise State University and La Trobe University- for the financial and logistic support to complete this project.

In these challenging pandemic times, we would also like to acknowledge our family, friends, and esteemed colleagues, who have been an invaluable source of support to complete a long-term project of this nature. Our heartfelt gratitude to all of you.

Finally, thanks to Peter Lang International Publishers, and especially to Anthony Mason and everyone involved in the production of this book, for both their confidence in this project, and their patience to see it to completion.

· 1 ·
Studying Judicial Activism in Comparative Perspective

Lori Hausegger and Raul Sanchez Urribarri

This book focuses on judicial activism in comparative perspective. Judicial activism is a contested concept frequently used by scholars, journalists, lawyers, and even politicians, to broadly describe the courts’ deliberate action that transcends the judiciary’s role as a neutral conflict-adjudicator. A quick glance at any news source regarding the use of ‘judicial activism’, shows how the term is used to describe a wide variety of examples in which courts or judges behave in a way that is perceived to overstep or violate “their cultural standards of judicial role” (Green, 2009, p. 1199). This occurs, across different socio-political contexts, legal systems, types of proceedings and other circumstances. Whilst the term is common in U.S. parlance about the courts’ intervention in politics and policy-making—often with a negative or pejorative connotation—it comes up in Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Great Britain, Israel, Turkey, and a wide variety of other nations, through different types of actors with various political proclivities.

When described in a negative way, an ‘activist judiciary’ is understood to be an abusive, politicized, overzealous or unprofessional institution that disregards its true mission in a democratic context, and its role as a guarantor of the rule of law. As Kermit Roosevelt points out, claiming that a court or decision is ‘activist’ has become “a rhetorically charged way of saying that you disagree with a decision or think a decision is wrong” (Rodia, citing Roosevelt, 2022). But there also seems to be ‘good activism’, described as virtuous from the eye of the beholder, with courts then being described as rising to the occasion and going beyond legal, institutional, or political constraints to do ‘what is right’ in a case. Some proponents of this perspective see judicial activism as a corrector to the excesses of democracy. For instance, Sherry argues, “too little activism produces worse consequences than does too much. If we cannot assure that the judges tread the perfect middle ground (and we cannot), it is better to have an overly aggressive judiciary than an overly restrained one” (2013, 1).

Yet, despite the common use of the term in popular discourse and research on law, courts, and judicial decision-making, works about judicial activism seldom engage in analyses that have in mind more than one court, judge, or decision. Often, commentary on judicial activism fails to link discussions about the phenomena to rigorous conceptual frameworks. Scholarly debates centered on the experiences of specific judicial systems seldom address the transferability of their definitions or refer to an overarching comparative theoretical reference. Without such, it is hard to study judicial activism in ways that assist comparative inquiry. Moreover, since the term has been frequently used in the U.S. context, some debates that take place in other jurisdictions are, consciously or not, informed by an institutional reality and socio-political circumstances that might differ significantly from the one under study. As a result, we are left with debates that fail to communicate with one another effectively.

To bridge this gap, this volume seeks to articulate a comparative perspective on judicial activism, bringing together a series of theoretical and empirical studies across different socio-political and institutional contexts. We hope that this exercise not only demonstrates the complexity of the concept, but also helps us make sense of the different meanings of judicial activism, while achieving a more nuanced picture about the conditions under which it tends to emerge, in what ways, and to what effect. We ground the discussion on a selection of countries across different types of political regimes and legal systems, developed by scholars specialized in these jurisdictions. Each contributes to the common goal of going beyond isolated case study analyses to explore judicial activism in ways that will contribute to a genuine comparative debate. In particular, the present volume focuses on three examples from Western democracies that have varying experiences with the more U.S.-Centric form of judicial activism: the U.S., Canada, and the U.K. After grounding the discussion in the more often studied common law experience, the volume then turns to six Latin American countries with very different experiences with judicial activism, democracy and liberal constitutionalism: Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Paraguay, and Venezuela. This focus on a wide variety of Latin American countries, allows for a more complete consideration of the complexity of judicial activism, using a part of the world where debates on the concept have been widespread in popular discourse and academia in recent years. These case studies are analyzed with reference to a common conceptual core, assisted by a beginning theoretical essay and two concluding cross-national studies highlighting different theoretical and methodological approaches.

Based on those premises, the present volume has sought to develop a conversation focused on the following key questions: 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 in a specific jurisdiction), and to what extent? How do we measure judicial activism? Do these measurements, and the assumptions upon which they rest, travel well in different contexts and times? How, and to what degree, can different actors expect that courts will go beyond their expected roles to engage in rights protection? Given rising trends of growing authoritarian and political polarization world-wide—and the political manipulation of courts in the U.S. and over the world—to what degree are these efforts affecting the propensity of courts to engage in judicial activism? How is judicial activism related to processes of democratization or, conversely, democratic backsliding? This book brings together original works by scholars with expertise in different thematic areas, methodological approaches, and regional expertise to address these questions. We have strived to bring together scholars specialized in comparative judicial politics and comparative constitutionalism –two fields that have grown increasingly intertwined, and which require increasing collaboration and cross-fertilization to study law and politics cross-nationally. We have developed this book based on a vibrant exchange among peers, by gathering the contributors to this book on two different occasions, allowing us to exchange views on the project’s mission, goals, and key debates. We hope the result is a book that is sensitive to the wide variety of experiences with judicial activism across the jurisdictions studied and beyond.

Approaching Judicial Activism in Comparative Perspective

There are many conceptual studies on judicial activism that have been developed over the years, since Schlesinger Jr. first coined the term (1947, see also Kmiec, 2004 and works discussed in Roux, 2021). Whilst there are works that, from the get-go, warn us about the lack of rigor with which the concept tends to be employed, and even discourage its use (e.g., Roosevelt, 2008), there is abundant scholarly literature that defines, critiques, and deliberately uses the term. These works have made a substantial effort to define judicial activism and, usually, make sense of the terms of the debate, particularly in the U.S. context. These studies not only include scholarly debates, but also uses of the term in popular culture or by legal actors themselves (Kmiec, 2004; Josev, 2017), covering one or more ‘dimensions’ of the different phenomena that ‘judicial activism’ encompasses, addressing the concept’s multiple meanings (Canon, 1982). A good example of this line of scholarship is Cohn and Kremnitzer (2005), who build on Canon to develop a multidimensional analysis of judicial activism that encompasses different instances of the phenomenon, at different stages of the judicial process and in relation with multiple players with which the judiciary interacts.

Waller and Sterling (2020) analyze judicial activism from a political theory perspective, focusing on ‘activist decisions’ as rulings based on personal or political convictions over legal considerations. This speaks directly to the issue of what is the acceptable range of judicial discretion, while leaving a pending task of assessing where (and how) to draw the line in terms of what decisions would be considered activist. On the other hand, Lindquist and Cross (2009) focus on vital methodological issues of relevance for empirical legal studies researchers of judicial activism/restraint, but yet again mainly deal with debates anchored in the U.S. context. In both cases, there is substantial room for enhancing the discussion by expanding it to different institutional and socio-political realities.

What about works that specifically grapple with the concept with a comparative lens? A notable example of judicial activism scholarship specifically seeking to develop a comparative approach is Holland’s 1991 edited collection. This book was an important innovation that not only advanced conceptual discussions on the topic, but also included chapters on a variety of jurisdictions across the world, with an emphasis on industrial democracies with different institutional configurations and trajectories. An important exception to this focus was the chapter on the Soviet Union, which was included back then as a country in the process of liberalization and political reform. This is important since, as we will see in some of the cases under analysis in this book, the extent to which courts are willing to sideline previous interpretations of the law in democratizing contexts, embracing a role that protects rights against political abuse, is an important part of the story of the global rise of judicial power. Of course, Holland’s edited volume is now over three decades old—a time where much has happened in terms of variations of political regime and the courts’ role across the world. The book also does not include major reflections on jurisdictions in democratizing societies in the Global South, countries that provide valuable insight into activism as a concept. Perhaps relatedly, the book focused on limited understandings of aspects of judicial activism, i.e., courts ‘adventuring’ to make social policies (Holland, 1991, p. 1) or engaging in lawmaking. Our project has sought to address this by not starting the project with a narrow understanding of judicial activism, but rather to let the project’s contributors bring to the analysis their own approaches, as long as they critically engaged with the term.

Other classic books from the nascent field of comparative judicial politics in the 1990s—such as Charles Epp’s classic The Rights Revolution (1998) and Tate and Vallinder’s collection The Global Expansion of Judicial Power (1995)—documented and analyzed a variety of cases of increasing judicial power across the world, yet for the most part did not address judicial activism and restraint trends or examples. Both books, though, had important lessons to offer to students of judicial activism comparatively. Tate and Vallinder’s volume highlighted the need to pay closer attention to judicial institutions as venues and deciders of major political debates, at a time when there was still wide resistance to accept the role of courts as political actors in many jurisdictions across the world. It also encouraged scholars to consider the wide variety of experiences globally against a surging narrative of rights protection in a growingly liberal context. Epp’s excellent book (1998) also pushed forward this view, while paying closer attention to the broader legal support network responsible for instances of judicialization of politics and policymaking. More importantly, both books engaged conceptually and methodologically with the different ways in which judges exercised their powers against a variety of institutional frameworks and socio-political conditions, whether as a selection of case studies (Tate and Vallinder) or in a small-n research design (Epp). Thus, while neither book sought to tackle conceptual and measurement questions pertaining to judicial activism, scholars can take important lessons from them.

More recently, there has been a surge of interest in studying judicial activism across different jurisdictions, reflecting an increasing awareness about the expansion of judicial authority and ensuing debates, especially at a time when courts are often put in the position of having to decide major cases of political import (i.e., mega-political cases, Hirschl, 2008). For instance, Dickson’s edited volume (2007) examines judicial activism across nine different common law jurisdictions (including the three included in this book), through the lens of their high court’s role in the protection of fundamental rights. Coutinho, La Torre and Smith’s (2015), edited collection focuses on the American and European experiences and takes an interdisciplinary look at judicial activism. The volume reunites perspectives from different fields, including legal, philosophical, and political science, taking a genuine comparative interest from both theoretical and empirical standpoints.

Details

Pages
X, 320
Publication Year
2024
ISBN (PDF)
9781433198137
ISBN (ePUB)
9781433198144
ISBN (Hardcover)
9781433198120
DOI
10.3726/b19826
Language
English
Publication date
2024 (June)
Keywords
Law Courts Judging Judicial Activism Judicial Decision-Making Constitutionalism Constitutional Law Public Law Comparative Politics Judicial Activism in Comparative Perspective Lori Hausegger Raul Sanchez Urribarri Judicial Politics
Published
New York, Berlin, Bruxelles, Chennai, Lausanne, Oxford, 2024. X, 320 pp., 18 b/w ill., 10 Tables.

Biographical notes

Lori Hausegger (Editor) Raul Urribarri (Editor)

Lori Hausegger is Professor of Political Science at Boise State University. She holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from Ohio State University, and a MA and BA from the University of Calgary. Her research focuses on judicial selection, judicial decision making and comparative courts with an emphasis on Canada. Raul Sanchez-Urribarri is a Senior Lecturer in Legal Studies at La Trobe University. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science (University of South Carolina), an LL.M. (Cambridge University), and a Law Degree (UCAB, Caracas). His research focuses on comparative law and courts in Latin America.

Previous

Title: Judicial Activism in Comparative Perspective