Search results

"When can the Executive manipulate the composition of a Court? What political factors explain judicial instability on the bench? Using original field data from Argentina's National Supreme Court and all twenty-four Provincial Supreme Courts, Andrea Castagnola develops a novel theory to explain forced retirements of judges. She argues that in developing democracies the political benefits of manipulating the court outweigh the costs associated with doing so. The instability of the political context and its institutions causes politicians to focus primarily on short-term goals and to care mostly about winning elections. Consequently, judiciaries become a valuable tool for politicians to have under their control.Contrary to the predictions of strategic retirement theory, Castagnola demonstrates that there are various institutional and non-institutional mechanisms for induced retirement which politicians have used against justices, regardless of the amount of support their party has in Congress. The theoretical innovations contained herein shed much needed light on the existing literature on judicial politics and democratization. Even though the political manipulation of courts is a worldwide phenomenon, previous studies have shown that Argentina is the theory-generating case for studying manipulation of high courts?"--Provided by publisher.

Provincial supreme courts are important players in local politics because justices can affect the interest of the ruling governors; however, no research has addressed the factors that affect judicial turnover in provincial high courts in new democracies. This research attempts to fill this gap by using original data on the 525 departures of all provincial high court justices in Argentina from 1983 to 2009. My guiding hypothesis is that the stability of a justice on the bench depends on the political proximity of the justice to the ruling governor rather than on the executive's institutional capacity to impeach. This study reveals that being aligned with the faction of the ruling governor is a major factor in accounting for judicial turnover not only in single-party provinces, as expected, but also in multi-party provinces. Because provincial politics have proven to be a major source of power for national politicians, governors would prefer to have a friendly court during their administration. Adapted from the source document.

Provincial supreme courts are important players in local politics because justices can affect the interest of the ruling governors; however, no research has addressed the factors that affect judicial turnover in provincial high courts in new democracies. This research attempts to fill this gap by using original data on the 525 departures of all provincial high court justices in Argentina from 1983 to 2009. My guiding hypothesis is that the stability of a justice on the bench depends on the political proximity of the justice to the ruling governor rather than on the executive's institutional capacity to impeach. This study reveals that being aligned with the faction of the ruling governor is a major factor in accounting for judicial turnover not only in single-party provinces, as expected, but also in multi-party provinces. Because provincial politics have proven to be a major source of power for national politicians, governors would prefer to have a friendly court during their administration. (GIGA)

"After more than seventy years of uninterrupted authoritarian government headed by the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI), Mexico formally began the transition to democracy in 2000. Unlike most other new democracies in Latin America, no special Constitutional Court was set up, nor was there any designated bench of the Supreme Court for constitutional adjudication. Instead, the judiciary saw its powers expand incrementally. Under this new context inevitable questions emerged: How have the justices interpreted the constitution? What is the relation of the court with the other political institutions? How much autonomy do justices display in their decisions? Has the court considered the necessary adjustments to face the challenges of democracy? It has become essential in studying the new role of the Supreme Court to obtain a more accurate and detailed diagnosis of the performances of its justices in this new political environment. Through critical review of relevant debates and using original data sets to empirically analyze the way justices voted on the three main means of constitutional control from 2000 through 2011, leading legal scholars provide a thoughtful and much needed new interpretation of the role the judiciary plays in a country's transition to democracy."--

Los institucionalistas han identificado un patrón de "reemplazo en serie", distintivo para los países de América Latina, en los cuales el cambio institucional se ha vuelto frecuente y radical. Los patrones de reemplazo en serie son la base de las conocidas "trampas" de la des-institucionalización: los golpes militares generan más golpes, los quiebres democráticos hacen que los colapsos de la democracia sean más probables, los reemplazos constitucionales fomentan la adopción de nuevas constituciones, los conflictos entre los distintos poderes de gobierno fomentan mayores conflictos, etc. En este trabajo desarrollamos una "teoría del reemplazo en serie" y la aplicamos para explicar los ciclos de recambio de los jueces en las cortes para 18 países latinoamericanos. Usando una nueva base de datos que incluye más de 3,000 jueces de las Cortes Supremas y Tribunales Constitucionales entre 1900 y 2010, mostramos que los intentos políticos de reorganizar las Cortes Supremas y Tribunales Constitucionales fomentan nuevos intentos por reorganizar dichos tribunales en años posteriores, creando un patrón secuencial de inestabilidad judicial perdurable en el tiempo. ; Students of institutions have identified a pattern of "serial replacement," distinctive of Latin American countries in which institutional change has become frequent as well as radical. Patterns of serial replacement underlie wellknown "traps" of deinstitutionalization: military coups beget more coups, democratic breakdowns make breakdowns more likely, constitutional replacements encourage the adoption of new constitutions, inter-branch conflicts feed further conflicts, and so on. In this paper we develop a theory of serial replacement and apply it to explain cycles of judicial instability in 18 Latin American countries. Using a novel dataset covering more than 3,000 Supreme Court and Constitutional Tribunal justices between 1900 and 2010, we show that political attempts to reshuffle Supreme Courts and Constitutional Tribunals encourage new attempts to reshuffle ...

Students of institutions have identified a pattern of ―serial replacement,‖ distinctive of Latin American countries in which institutional change has become frequent as well as radical. Patterns of serial replacement underlie wellknown ―traps‖ of deinstitutionalization: military coups beget more coups, democratic breakdowns make breakdowns more likely, constitutional replacements encourage the adoption of new constitutions, inter-branch conflicts feed further conflicts, and so on. In this paper we develop a theory of serial replacement and apply it to explain cycles of judicial instability in 18 Latin American countries. Using a novel dataset covering more than 3,000 Supreme Court and Constitutional Tribunal justices between 1900 and 2010, we show that political attempts to reshuffle Supreme Courts and Constitutional Tribunals encourage new attempts to reshuffle the high courts in later years, creating a sequential pattern of judicial instability. ; University of Pittsburgh ; UNSAM

Legal scholars frequently advocate institutional reforms to modernize the judiciary and promote judicial independence. However, constitutional reforms also offer an opportunity for politicians to reshuffle the high courts. The negative consequences of constitutional change for judicial stability are explored using an original database of Supreme Court and Constitutional Tribunal members in eighteen Latin American countries between 1904 and 2010. Because unobserved factors potentially explain constitutional replacement as well as judicial turnover, a two-stage event-history model has been employed. The analysis integrates two literatures, studies of constitution-making and studies of judicial politics. The results show that constitutional change is a significant cause of judicial instability and court manipulation, even after potential endogeneity has been taken into account.

In many Latin American countries the executive branch manipulates the composition of the Supreme Court, and judicial independence has remained elusive. Because high courts can exercise judicial review and influence lower courts, incoming presidents often force the resignation of adversarial justices or "pack" the courts with friends. One indicator of this problem has been the high turnover among members of the high courts. In this paper we offer systematic evidence to compare this problem across countries and to place this issue in historical perspective. Our analysis covers 11 Latin American countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, and Uruguay) between 1904 and 2006. We model the entrance of new justices to the Supreme Court as a function of "natural" (legal and biological) factors, political conditions empowering the president to reshuffle the Court, and institutional incentives promoting executive encroachment on the judiciary.