You may have to Search all our reviewed books and magazines, click the sign up button below to create a free account.
Although they are not directly accountable to voters, constitutional court judges communicate with the general public through the media. In Judicial Power and Strategic Communication in Mexico, Jeffrey K. Staton argues that constitutional courts develop public relations strategies in order to increase the transparency of judicial behavior and promote judicial legitimacy. Yet, in some political contexts there can be a tension between transparency and legitimacy, and for this reason, courts cannot necessarily advance both conditions simultaneously. The argument is tested via an analysis of the Mexican Supreme Court during Mexico's recent transition to democracy, and also through a cross-national analysis of public perceptions of judicial legitimacy. The results demonstrate that judges can be active participants in the construction of their own power. More broadly, the study develops a positive political theory of institutions, which highlights the connections between democratization and the rule of law.
This book argues that independent courts can defend democracy by encouraging political elites to more prudently exercise their powers.
The Routledge Handbook of Comparative Political Institutions (HCPI) is designed to serve as a comprehensive reference guide to our accumulated knowledge and the cutting edge of scholarship about political institutions in the comparative context. It differs from existing handbooks in that it focuses squarely on institutions but also discusses how they intersect with the study of mass behaviour and explain important outcomes, drawing on the perspective of comparative politics. The Handbook is organized into three sections: The first section, consisting of six chapters, is organized around broad theoretical and empirical challenges affecting the study of institutions. It highlights the major is...
This Research Handbook is a multi-faceted, comparative analysis of how law and political systems interact around the world. Chapters include analyses of judicial deference, congressional support, democratic representation, politicization of courts, public support, and judicialization across multiple jurisdictions in the United States and abroad. Chapters also investigate transnational courts and the linkages between international and domestic law and politics.
To what extent do courts in Latin America protect individual rights and limit governments? This volume answers these fundamental questions by bringing together today's leading scholars of judicial politics. Drawing on examples from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Colombia, Costa Rica and Bolivia, the authors demonstrate that there is widespread variation in the performance of Latin America's constitutional courts. In accounting for this variation, the contributors push forward ongoing debates about what motivates judges; whether institutions, partisan politics and public support shape inter-branch relations; and the importance of judicial attitudes and legal culture. The authors deploy a range of methods, including qualitative case studies, paired country comparisons, statistical analysis and game theory.
Federal judges are not just robots or politicians in robes, yet their behavior is not well understood, even among themselves. Using statistical methods, a political scientist, an economist, and a judge construct a unified theory of judicial decision-making to dispel the mystery of how decisions from district courts to the Supreme Court are made.
'Principles of Comparative Politics' offers a comprehensive and up-to-date view of the rich world of comparative inquiry, research and scholarship.
Building upon the growing body of scholarship on the factors and actors that influence the extent to which states implement human rights law, this cutting-edge Research Handbook takes an interdisciplinary approach to exploring the roles of actors within supranational human rights bodies, the decisions and judgements they make, and the tools they use to facilitate human rights implementation.
"Intolerant Justice examines how national legal systems handle dilemmas of international cooperation: Should our citizens stand trial in foreign courts that do not meet our standards? Should we extradite offenders to countries with a poor human rights record? Should we enforce rulings issued by foreign judges whose values are different from our own? This book argues that ethnocentrism - the human tendency to divide the world into superior in-groups and inferior out-groups - fuels fear and mistrust of foreign justice and sparks domestic political controversies: while skeptics portray foreign legal systems as a danger and threat, others dismiss these concerns. The book traces this dynamic in a...
This comparative analysis, focusing on Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay, explores the complex relationship between executive politics and judicial action, showing that judicial independence is a crucial factor in prosecution. It will engage Latin Americanists as well as all who are concerned with justice and human rights around the world.