Supermajorities in Constitutional Courts

Constitutional adjudication is a subject of fascination for scholars. Judges may annul the will of a democratically elected Parliament in counter-majoritarian fashion. Although conceived as a remedy against majoritarianism, judges also decide cases by voting. Whether they do so through simple majori...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Rivera Leon, Mauro Arturo
Format: eBook
Language:English
Published: Taylor & Francis 2024
Subjects:
Online Access:
Collection: OAPEN - Collection details see MPG.ReNa
LEADER 02846nma a2200349 u 4500
001 EB002209499
003 EBX01000000000000001346699
005 00000000000000.0
007 cr|||||||||||||||||||||
008 240507 ||| eng
020 |a 9781003458272 
020 |a 9781032599694 
020 |a 9781040011232 
100 1 |a Rivera Leon, Mauro Arturo 
245 0 0 |a Supermajorities in Constitutional Courts  |h Elektronische Ressource 
260 |b Taylor & Francis  |c 2024 
300 |a 256 p. 
653 |a Methods, theory and philosophy of law 
653 |a Constitutional and administrative law: general 
653 |a Politics and government 
653 |a Supermajorities;Constitutional Adjudication;Judicial Review;Counter-majoritarian difficulty;democratic deference 
653 |a Comparative law 
041 0 7 |a eng  |2 ISO 639-2 
989 |b OAPEN  |a OAPEN 
500 |a Creative Commons (cc), https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 
028 5 0 |a 10.4324/9781003458272 
856 4 2 |u https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/89502  |z OAPEN Library: description of the publication 
856 4 0 |u https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/id/2ab3ce00-5abb-486b-b175-b6a72e4d4780/9781040011195.pdf  |x Verlag  |3 Volltext 
082 0 |a 320 
082 0 |a 340 
082 0 |a 100 
520 |a Constitutional adjudication is a subject of fascination for scholars. Judges may annul the will of a democratically elected Parliament in counter-majoritarian fashion. Although conceived as a remedy against majoritarianism, judges also decide cases by voting. Whether they do so through simple majorities or supermajorities is not trivial.

The debate around supermajorities has awakened anew amidst theories of judicial limitation and new conceptions of judicial review. This book advances our knowledge of systems employing supermajorities in constitutional adjudication by performing a comparative analysis of ten jurisdictions and twelve supermajority models. It introduces a typology of the main models of institutional design, the reasons leading policymakers to establish them, and the impact supermajorities have on courts. It explores the question of whether supermajorities grant deference and foster consensus, or if they disable constitutional courts from exercising judicial review. By analyzing the history, practice, and effects of supermajority rules in courts, this book contributes to an ongoing conversation on the democratic implications of voting protocols in constitutional courts. It will be a valuable resource for policy-makers, scholars, and researchers working in the areas of comparative constitutional law and constitutional politics.

The Open Access version of this book, available at http://www.taylorfrancis.com, has been made available under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.