Suchergebnisse

Can courts really build democracy in a state emerging from authoritarian rule? This book presents a searching critique of the contemporary global model of democracy-building for post-authoritarian states, arguing that it places excessive reliance on courts. Since 1945, both constitutional courts and international human rights courts have been increasingly perceived as alchemists, capable of transmuting the base materials of a nascent democracy into the gold of a functioning democratic system. By charting the development of this model, and critically analysing the evidence and claims for courts as democracy-builders, this book argues that the decades-long trend toward ever greater reliance on courts is based as much on faith as fact, and can often be counter-productive. Offering a sustained corrective to unrealistic perceptions of courts as democracy-builders, the book points the way toward a much needed rethinking of democracy-building models and a re-evaluation of how we employ courts in this role

Abstract
On 28 October 2018 the far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro won the presidential elections in Brazil with 55% of the vote. This result has been viewed by many as yet another instance of the global rise of authoritarian populist leaders, grouping Bolsonaro alongside the likes of Hungary's Viktor Orbán, Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, India's Narendra Modi, or Donald Trump in the USA – indeed, Bolsonaro has been dubbed the "Trump of the Tropics." The focus on Bolsonaro himself reflects the strong emphasis on executives in a rapidly expanding literature suggesting the emergence of a new form of would-be autocrat who is democratically elected but who hollows out democratic rule over time. However, this Article argues that, far beyond Bolsonaro, the Brazilian experience is an important case-study as it prompts reflection on three fundamental propositions. First, any analysis of liberal democracy as the perceived object of attack must be highly cognizant of the democratic "starting point" and history of a given state. Second, an excessive focus on executive-led assaults on democratic rule can impede fuller analysis of a broader suite of actors and factors relevant to the (declining) health of the democratic system. Third, authoritarianism is a more appropriate analytical lens than populism for identifying potential democratic threats, especially in the Brazilian context.

In 2016 and 2017 two seemingly unrelated states celebrated centenaries of nation-defining revolutions. Mexico marked the centenary of the 1917 Constitution, which gave formal expression to the demands of the Mexican Revolution that began in 1910. Ireland commemorated 1916, the date of the Easter Rising; a rebellion against rule by the British Empire which led ultimately to independence. This article examines how both Ireland's and Mexico's constitutional histories for the past century relate to two 'unfinished revolutions', in which the hopes and aspirations of the initial revolutions in each state have been only partially realised. In doing so, the article recognises the significant constitutional progress that has been achieved in each state, but also the challenges faced and remaining deficiencies in meeting the aspirations of each revolution, as well as growing threats in the current febrile international climate. Although the constitutional story of each state evidently features a dizzying array of actors, the article places particular focus on the role of courts – especially supreme courts and international human rights courts – in helping or hindering positive transformation in each state.

The incremental deterioration of democratic rule worldwide is one of the most pressing global challenges today, and public lawyers are indispensable to the search for greater understanding of this phenomenon, and to the search for potential solutions. This challenge is now the focus of one of the most rapidly expanding research areas in public law: every week more research appears and more events and projects are announced as scholars push to grasp the unfolding and intensifying rollback of democratic progress globally. Yet, much of this global effort is scattered as scholars are cut off from one another by research field boundaries, geographic boundaries, and network boundaries.

Abstract:Can courts really 'build' democracy in a state emerging from undemocratic rule? In contemporary thought, courts are perceived as central components in any political settlement aimed at achieving a functioning democratic order in a previously authoritarian state (this piece, unlike others in the special collection, does not specifically address post-conflict contexts). The past four decades have witnessed an increasing tendency in post-authoritarian states to place significant faith in courts as guardians of the new democratic dispensation – a trend replicated in contemporary democracy-building projects (e.g. Tunisia). Constitutional courts (including supreme courts) are expected not only to breathe life into the paper promises of the democratic constitutional text, but also, increasingly, to guard and build democracy itself by policing political adherence to emerging transnational norms of democratic governance. Outside the state, regional human rights courts have also been cast as democracy-builders, acting as a support, backup mechanism, and even surrogate for domestic courts. Yet, despite this 'court obsession', our understanding of courts as democracy-builders remains critically underdeveloped. This article argues that while it has been assumed that courts have a central role to play in democracy-building, this assumption is based on rather slim evidence and undermined by yawning gaps in existing research.