Reason Without Vote: The Representative and Majoritarian Function of Constitutional Courts
Chapter in: Democratizing Constitutional Law: Perspectives on Legal Theory and Legitimacy of Constitutionalism, Springer, 2016; ISBN 978-3-319-28369-2
2016
- 4,985Usage
- 2Mentions
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Paper Description
This essay starts with a brief overview of some of the changes and new developments in constitutional law in the past decades. It also provides a brief account of the ascent of the Judiciary in most democracies, as well as the expansion of constitutional jurisdiction throughout the world. The main topic of the essay, however, are the two roles played by constitutional courts in our days: the counter-majoritarian role, which is widely studied by constitutional theory, and the representative role of such courts, a subject that has been neglected by constitutional scholars in general, with few exceptions. The argument is developed in a cosmopolitan fashion, drawing from authors and experiences from different parts of the world; however, it uses the court of a new democracy – the Supreme Court of Brazil – as a case study. In polities in which the legislature struggles with a major democratic deficit – and until it can be properly overcome – it may be the case, under certain circumstances, that it will be up to the Supreme Court to be responsive to unattended social demands presented as legal claims of rights. Furthermore, in some exceptional situations, the Court may need to play the part of an enlightened vanguard, pushing history forward. At the conclusion, though, the essay emphasizes the idea of institutional dialogues as the best path between legislative omission and judicial supremacy.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know