Judicial Review

Judicial Review in Law

J.B. Grossman , in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001

Judicial review is the institutional capacity of courts of law to determine the constitutional validity of actions taken by either coordinate or inferior branches of government. It is an outgrowth of efforts to limit the powers of those authorized to interpret both sacred and secular texts, and to ensure that laws, and the acts of those empowered to enforce them, will be consistent with the basic values of a society and its basic governing structures. Enabling government while at the same time protecting against the potential abuse of governmental power is an age-old, and continuing, dilemma of a constitutional democracies. In modern democracies, still, judicial review presents its ain dilemma—how to rationalize limits on majority rule. This recognition of the inherent tensions betwixt democracy and the dominion of law, is often referred to—at to the lowest degree in the American context—every bit the 'counter-majoritarian difficulty.' But as judicial review and constitutionalism have expanded to a big number of countries, and with the ascension of supranational courts, attempts to achieve a workable and legitimate balance that respects both democratic values and individual rights are now a worldwide phenomenon.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scientific discipline/article/pii/B0080430767027935

Our Constitutional Structure of Government

Nan D. Hunter , in The Law of Emergencies (Second Edition), 2018

Judicial Review

The Founders understood judicial review as an essential component of liberty. According to the Federalist No. 78:

[T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, amongst other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their dominance…

The estimation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a key law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its significant, equally well equally the meaning of whatsoever item act proceeding from the legislative body. If at that place should happen to be an irreconcilable variance betwixt the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to exist preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents…

The courts can review laws in two important means.

●

Courts have the power to declare whether acts of the legislature (Congress or a state legislature) violate the Constitution.

●

Courts also have the power to interpret the meaning of statutory text when there is ambiguity.

If the Supreme Court finds that a statute has a particular meaning and Congress does non concord with the Court's interpretation, Congress tin can remove the ambiguity by alteration the law to clarify its pregnant. Bold that ambiguity was the merely trouble with the statute, Congress has the last discussion. If, all the same, the Supreme Courtroom finds that a statute is unconstitutional, Congress' only option is to enact a new statute in line with the criteria fix out by the Court, because the Supreme Court has the last word on the meaning of the Constitution. (For more near the relationship between federal and state courts, see Chapter 4.)

Principal Justice John Marshall crystallized the principle of judicial review in the opinion that he wrote for the Supreme Court in i of the near famous and important of all Supreme Courtroom cases. In 1803, the Court articulated the principle of judicial supremacy in interpreting the Constitution, a principle that has endured as the third essential component of the system of checks and balances. In Marbury five Madison, the Court wrote

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department [co-operative] to say what the police is. Those who apply the dominion to particular cases must of necessity expound and interpret that dominion. If 2 laws conflict with each other, the courts must determine on the operation of each.

And then if a law [passed by Congress] be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the courtroom must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

Since Marbury v. Madison, the principle of judicial review has become a central facet of American governance. Following is an excerpt from the famous "Watergate tapes" case, in which President Richard Nixon sought to quash a subpoena outcome for tapes and other materials relevant to the role of White House officials in the Watergate burglary.

Us v. Nixon

U.S. Supreme Court, 1974. 418 The states 683

Chief Justice Burger delivered the opinion of the courtroom.

… [Westward]e turn to the claim that the subpoena should exist quashed because it demands 'confidential conversations betwixt a President and his close advisors that it would be inconsistent with the public involvement to produce.' The kickoff contention is a wide claim that the separation of powers doctrine precludes judicial review of a President's claim of privilege…

In the operation of assigned constitutional duties each co-operative of the Government must initially interpret the Constitution, and the interpretation of its powers past any co-operative is due great respect from the others. The President'south counsel, as we have noted, reads the Constitution as providing an absolute privilege of confidentiality for all Presidential communications. Many decisions of this Courtroom, nonetheless, take unequivocally reaffirmed the holding of Marbury 5. Madison, that '(i)t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial section to say what the police force is.'

No holding of the Courtroom has defined the scope of judicial power specifically relating to the enforcement of a subpoena for confidential Presidential communications for use in a criminal prosecution, only other exercises of power by the Executive Branch and the Legislative Co-operative take been found invalid every bit in conflict with the Constitution. In a serial of cases, the Court interpreted the explicit immunity conferred by limited provisions of the Constitution on Members of the House and Senate by the Speech or Debate Clause, U.S. Const. Art. I, § 6.

Since this Court has consistently exercised the power to construe and delineate claims arising under express powers, it must follow that the Court has authority to interpret claims with respect to powers declared to derive from enumerated powers.

Our system of authorities 'requires that federal courts on occasion interpret the Constitution in a manner at variance with the construction given the document by another co-operative.' And in Baker v. Carr, the Court stated:

'(D)eciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether the action of that branch exceeds whatever potency has been committed, is itself a fragile exercise in ramble estimation, and is a responsibility of this Courtroom as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.'

Withal the deference each branch must accord the others, the 'judicial Power of the United States' vested in the federal courts by Art. III, § one, of the Constitution can no more than be shared with the Executive Branch than the Master Executive, for instance, can share with the Judiciary the veto ability, or the Congress share with the Judiciary the power to override a Presidential veto. Any other decision would exist contrary to the basic concept of separation of powers and the checks and balances that period from the scheme of a tripartite government. The Federalist, No. 47. We therefore reaffirm that it is the province and duty of this Court 'to say what the law is' with respect to the merits of privilege presented in this case. Marbury five. Madison.

Read full affiliate

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128042755000012

Public Wellness Police force I

Nan D. Hunter , in The Police force of Emergencies (2d Edition), 2018

Judicial Review

The regulations exercise not provide for any judicial review of CDC deportment. Instead they contain the argument that "Aught in this section shall affect the constitutional or statutory rights of individuals to obtain judicial review of their Federal detention."

Recall from Chapter 9, The Constitution and Individual Rights, that anyone being detained by governmental authority may seek a writ of habeas corpus, which is the blazon of review to which this provision refers. Is this adequate protection for someone under an order of quarantine, isolation, or conditional release? A number of public health constabulary experts objected to this provision when the proposed regulations were published for public commentary. (See Chapter 6, Federal Agencies, for a description of how the Authoritative Procedures Human action works.) Nevertheless, the CDC declined to modify what became the last language. How else might the agency have dealt with the question of judicial review? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the differing approaches?

Read total chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128042755000139

Recordkeeping and juridical governance

Livia lacovino , in Archives, 2005

Government commercialization and admission rights

The authoritative law regime, which includes judicial review, administrative appeals and Ombudsman legislation in which FOI is a central characteristic, may be of limited apply in providing access to government information in relation to the commercial activities of government, for case, in Australia 'authorities concern enterprises' (GBEs) are increasingly exempted from administrative law, including FOI, as it is seen equally placing them at a competitive disadvantage. Outsourcing or 'contractual ization' of public assistants has ted to the diminution of rights bachelor to citizens for accessing government information. Public rights to records cease in the case of privatization, which involves the selling of avails and entitlements of a government-owned corporation to the individual sector, completely or partially. Every bit government functions are farther privatized FOI volition eventually be express to a diminished expanse of government activity.

Figure 10.3. In 2004 Victorians were surprised to learn that over thirty years' worth of 'Guthrie cards' – used to collect blood samples from newborn babies for screening for rare diseases – are now owned by a private company.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978187693884050010X

Surroundings Regulation: Legal Aspects

K. Wintertime , in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001

half-dozen Legal Protection

Regulation usually constitutes a two-tiered relationship between the addressees and the regime. In dominion of law systems judicial review of this relationship is provided. Depending on the system, legal recourse may be granted confronting regulation in the course of individual administrative acts, as well as sublegal acts and fifty-fifty laws. In ER there are addressees who by implication have the right of appeal, and the situation with this kind of regulation is farther complicated because it is characterized by a iii-tiered relationship involving third parties (neighbors, etc.). These also ask for legal protection against environmental risk. Civil police force remedies directed at the polluter, such as injunctive reliefs and tort or strict liability, come aslope public law remedies directed at the administrative organs, such as the action for quashing an authoritative human action (due east.g., a structure potency for a unsafe installation), or for issuing an authoritative act (e.g., an order to prohibit the marketing of a toxic substance).

These remedies are, however, confronted with the problem typical of ER that ofttimes the ecology impairment reaches across the individual sphere of the affected tertiary party (consider the destruction of a biotope on propertied land implicating the extinction of a species), or that the tertiary party is just indirectly or morally afflicted (contamination by pesticides of groundwater which may be used for drinking water purposes, destruction of a forest resort frequented by birdwatchers) (Prieur 1996, p. 842). Legal systems differ in the extent they open their legal remedies up to those 'trans-private' interests. This may be washed by allowing other agents than the individual to defend the related commonage involvement, and by extending the scope of legal arguments to commonage concerns. In the realm of liability Brazilian constabulary, for example, allows for an action called 'civil-public' which can exist filed by the public prosecutor as well as by environmental associations for restoration of or bounty for ecological damage (Leme Machado 1998, p. 290). As to tertiary party appeal confronting the administrative dominance of unsafe activities, French and English law, for instance, only require the plaintiff to prove to exist affected in a factual involvement (Winter 1996, p. 129), whereas co-ordinate to the narrower German concept the plaintiff must show that a subjective correct or at least an interest individually protected by law was violated (Kloepfer 1998, p. 510). US law takes a center position by requiring that (a) the plaintiff'south factual interest is afflicted and (b) this interest lies within the zone of interests protected or regulated by the relevant law (Findley and Farber 1999, p. 78). The overall European trend points in the aforementioned direction.

Legal systems differ as well with regard to the density of judicial review of administrative activeness. Some reduce court review to errors in constabulary (USA, Great britain, France) whilst others extend information technology to errors in fact (Germany). Case law has, however, more than and more blurred this line. The overall practise has get to reduce or extend court checking, depending on whether the previous administrative proceeding was courtroom-like or non, if the affair involved circuitous technical, prognostic or evaluative questions or not, etc. (Findley and Farber 1999, p. 120, Kloepfer 1998, p. 532).

Read total chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scientific discipline/article/pii/B0080430767028333

Constitutional Courts

B.-O. Bryde , in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001

Constitutional Courts (CCs) are specialized courts with jurisdiction over constitutional matters. In contrast to the American organization of judicial review, CCs based on Kelsen's Austrian model are the result of constitutional pattern. The rise of CCs began after WW 2 and gained momentum in contempo processes of constitutional transition. The rules for the selection of judges seek to reconcile autonomous legitimacy and safeguards for independence. CCs' jurisdiction typically includes judicial review of legislation and adjudication of constitutional disputes. Individuals may have access in human rights cases. Democratic theory questions the legitimacy of CCs but they appear to be a workable model to reconcile majority rule with safeguards confronting its abuse if the ability of CCs is constrained by 'judicial restraint.' In sociology of police CCs are and so distinct from other courts that sociolegal findings about judicial behavior are not necessarily applicative. Despite the politicized date process institutional involvement forces, CCs to bear witness their independence. To a certain extent they have given up the ideal-typical judicial style of decision making for a political ane (e.g., by being agile rather than reactive, broad construction of open-textured ramble texts and flexible forms of judicial determination-making).

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0080430767027923

Botnet Detection: Tools and Techniques

Craig A. Schiller , ... Michael Cross , in Botnets, 2007

Forensics Techniques and Tools for Botnet Detection

The field of digital forensics is concerned with the application of scientific methodology to gathering and presenting testify from digital sources to investigate criminal or unauthorized activity, originally for judicial review.

The forensic procedure at the judiciary level involves strict procedures to maintain the admissibility and integrity of evidence. Even for internal investigations, you should work as closely to those procedures equally is applied, in example of later legal or administrative complications.

There is no single, simple approach to investigating a suspected botnet. Brand the best of all the resources that tin can help you out, from spam and abuse notifications to the logs from your network and organization administration tools.

Automated reports generated from log reports by tools like Swatch don't merely help you monitor the wellness of your systems; in the event of a security breach, they give you an immediate commencement on investigating what'due south happened.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978159749135850007X

Constitutionalism

West.F. Murphy , in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001

Constitutionalism, therefore, demands 'a arrangement of regularized restraints [beyond complimentary elections] upon those who exercise political ability' (Friedrich 1964, p. 17). A constitutional text with a bill of rights and judicial review are the most visible just not the sole constitutionalist restraints. Many constitutionalists, like most autonomous theorists, also emphasize the importance of political culture. As James Madison told the Kickoff Congress when he introduced the Nib of Rights.

It may be thought that all newspaper barriers against the power of the customs are too weak to exist worthy of attention … [Y]et, equally they have a tendency to print some caste of respect for them, to plant the public opinion in their favor, and rouse the attention of the whole customs, it may be 1 ways to command the majority from those acts to which they might otherwise be inclined (Annals of Congress, I, 440f, 1789).

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0080430767011190

Supreme Courts

C.R. Epp , in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001

1.one The Main Types

Supreme courts have a broad multifariousness of forms, and are related to other political institutions in a wide variety of ways, but however autumn within ii main types reflecting the broad partitioning betwixt the common police force and civil police traditions (see Legal Systems, Classification of ; Common Law ; Ceremonious Law ). In common-law countries, a single national supreme courtroom has full general jurisdiction over a wide range of cases in nigh all areas of the law arising in lower courts. These courts are frankly recognized as constabulary-making bodies (through their development of caselaw), and traditionally have been valued for their roles in checking executive discretion and lending coherence and consistency to their land's caselaw. They exercise these roles virtually exclusively in cases arising out of concrete disputes betwixt ii or more parties; the losing party in a lower courtroom may appeal the determination to a superior courtroom, and a minor proportion of these appeals ultimately reaches the country'south supreme courtroom where review, in theory, is confined to disputes over law (and not facts) (meet Appeals: Legal ). This model is found today in countries throughout the old British empire, particularly in the The states, Canada, Australia, Republic of india, and in Africa, particularly Ghana, Republic of kenya, Nigeria, as well as Due south Africa.

In some mutual-law countries, particularly the USA and countries post-obit its model, the supreme court possesses the power of judicial review to strike down legislation equally unconstitutional, but typically just incidentally to resolving disputes between ii or more parties (a organization known every bit 'concrete review') (encounter Judicial Review in Law ). In other common-law countries—those with parliamentary sovereignty, particularly Britain—the supreme court has no such power but nonetheless exercises relatively broad say-so to cheque authoritative discretion. Following the enormous symbolic influence of the United states Supreme Court's attack on racial segregation and its cosmos of new private rights in the 1950s and 1960s, some supreme courts in mutual-law countries, especially Canada and India, shifted markedly from the British to the American model by increasingly exercising the power of judicial review, particularly in the surface area of individual rights (Epp 1998; Knopff and Morton 1992). Nether the growing influence of European police force, even the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, Uk's supreme court, has fabricated decisions that announced to exist edging toward a frank exercise of judicial review, a tendency that is probable to exist reinforced every bit United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland'southward new neb of rights gains authorization.

Civil police force systems, by contrast, have been heavily influenced by the French Revolution'south efforts to limit the ability of courts and to foreclose the development of an independent, powerful, and active judiciary headed past a unmarried supreme court. Consequently, the supreme judicial ability in many civil law countries is divided into iii (or more than) distinct institutions, each with a specialized jurisdiction (Jacob et al., 1996, Merryman 1985). Thus, in France, the ordinary judiciary, which is headed upwards by the Court of Cassation, traditionally has been strictly forbidden from exercising judicial review or in any other way challenging legislative or administrative acts. The value of some mechanism for checking authoritative acts was rapidly recognized, however, resulting in the creation of a separate administrative courtroom, the Contentious Section of the Council of State (hereafter, the Quango of Land), which at present functions as the supreme court for the administrative court organization. With the growing interest in constitutionalism afterward World War Ii, many civil law countries added a separate constitutional courtroom with the ability of judicial review over legislation, reflecting the belief that the ordinary supreme court was insufficiently statesmanlike, too bourgeois, or too tied to a prior authorities, to give meaningful effect to constitutional provisions (Cappelletti 1989, p. 145, Favoreu 1990, Merryman and Vigoriti 1967) (see Constitutional Courts ). In countries in which the ramble court decides challenges to existing laws, that courtroom and the ordinary supreme court have at times developed sharply conflicting interpretations of the validity of detail laws, which has led to significant tensions betwixt these courts (see e.thou., Krug 1997, Merryman and Vigoriti 1967). The civil law model—with multiple courts of last resort—has been adopted throughout much of Europe, many parts of Africa, the Heart East, and Latin America.

The force of the pressures favoring active supreme courtroom participation in the policy process are axiomatic in the history of the French system. The French Court of Cassation originated as a legislative tribunal with power only to quash incorrect judicial interpretations of law, just over fourth dimension it adopted a forthright appellate function and eventually was formally converted into the ordinary court arrangement's supreme courtroom; information technology has since engaged in meaning judicial policy-making (Merryman 1985); (for parallels in Uk, see Stevens 1978). Similarly, although the Quango of State is non a part of the regular judiciary, it has evolved to a position of nifty independence within the administrative branch, adjudicates the legal claims of individuals confronting the state bureaucracy, exercises judicial review over administrative regulations (which constitute a substantial proportion of French law), and has served as a model for supreme courts elsewhere (Chocolate-brown and Bell 1993, Hill 1993, Merryman 1985). Although formally there is no doctrine of stare decisis in civil law systems, in practice the decisions of the Court of Cassation and the Council of State gain wide adherence in lower courts and constitute a body of 'jurisprudence' that is similar in many means to caselaw (Merryman 1996).

The institutional structures of supreme courts in Latin America mix elements of the The states and French models (see e.g., Barker 1986). Thus, virtually Latin-American countries have a single supreme court with the power of judicial review and with general jurisdiction over appeals from a diversity of ordinary courts, simply many deny to the inferior courts the ability of judicial review, and even the supreme court's power of judicial review in well-nigh of these countries is limited to suspending the awarding of a law in a particular example, not invalidating the constabulary itself. Some countries in the region follow the French model by denying the supreme court jurisdiction over the administrative courts; some countries' supreme courts hear ramble problems that are referred by the legislature, and Columbia has both a regular supreme courtroom and a divide constitutional court.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/commodity/pii/B0080430767027911

Constitutionalism, Comparative

H. Klug , in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001

3 Constitutions, Constitutionalism, and the Politics of Comparing

Comparative constitutionalism has shifted its emphasis from being a philosophical debate over the nature and grade of skillful government to a more legal focus on the awarding and meaning of particular constitutional structures and rights, also as on the role of the judiciary in the project of limited authorities (Sajo 1999 ). While the question of judicial review, and particularly the debate over the relationship betwixt constitutionalism and republic, dominated much of the academic discourse in the twentieth century, the irresolute social and political context has brought greater attention to the interaction of ramble ideas and institutions across dissimilar legal systems and national boundaries (Schedler et al. 1999, Hanafin and Williams 1999, Teubner 1997). This new tendency is outset to define a new field of comparative constitutionalism in theory and practice.

Comparative constitutionalism originated in western thought with Aristotle. In the Nicomachean Ethics (Aristotle 1996) he made a instance for the comparative study of constitutions, arguing that by studying the 'constitutions we have collected … we shall perhaps be more than likely to encounter which constitution is all-time, and how each must be ordered, and what laws and community it must use' (Aristotle 1181b, 13–22). Although simply the Constitution of Athens (Aristotle 1996) remains from this early on venture, the product of this analytical exercise is presented by Aristotle in The Politics (Aristotle 1996) and remains a principle source for the study of comparative authorities, which all the same largely aims to construct a normative definition of institutional and political practices that are necessary in order to secure the good life.

The Aristotlean notion of constitutionalism, combining both a distinctive political order and the idea of a political regime in general is, co-ordinate to Carl Friedrich, the source of the 'modern idea of a constitution as the organization of a government, its offices, and the relation of the offices' (Friedrich 1968a). For Friedrich, however, this understanding, which recognizes all forms of regime as exhibiting one or other grade of constitutionalism, was inadequate, for information technology incorporated dictatorial forms of governance inside the idea of constitutionalism. Instead, Friedrich (1968b), along with McIIwain (1947) and Wormuth (1949), emphasized the relationship between constitutionalism and private liberty. For them, the essence of constitutionalism is not the organization of ability but rather the thought of limited ability. From the thought of restraints on power to the separation and sectionalisation of power, the focus among Anglo-American theorists through the middle decades of the twentieth century was on the guarantee of individual freedom which they took to be the product of various means of limiting country power (Pound 1957).

Writing first in the shadow of Nazi Germany, and then in the aftermath of Globe War II, and during the Common cold War, Friedrich shifted the focus away from the comparative perspective inherent in the Aristotlean approach by posing the question: what is the political function of the constitution? From this starting point, Friedrich identified the protection of the individual member of the political customs as the primary object of constitutional government, thus redefining constitutionalism every bit a 'mod phenomena' whose key concern is the practice and theory of limited regime (Friedrich 1968b). This focus empowered western theorists to refuse ramble forms, particularly the 'symbolic' state socialist constitutions that failed to limit land power, as aberrations of the constitutionalist tradition. Thus constitutionalism was once once again given a normative grade, but at the price of limiting the concept only to those constitutional arrangements that successfully express and controlled state ability.

The failure of post-colonial constitutions in Africa and other parts of the Tertiary World, despite the inclusion of clauses formally limiting, separating, and decision-making state power, produced an alternative, 'socio-legal' approach to constitutionalism. Legal academics and political scientists argued that it was important to sympathise the economical and social context that adamant the effective constitution of power in these newly independent states (Ghai 1991). Taken further, this assay seeks to demonstrate how the underlying colonial and neocolonial conditions of social organization, particularly the dual legal system and lack of land tenure security, restrict the capacity of civil society in Africa (Mamdani 1996, Shivji 1998). Without changes in these conditions, it is argued, the notion of legal rights against the country and restraints on country power are ephemeral. Despite this disillusionment with formal constitutions and constitutionalism, struggles for democracy and interethnic strife in many developing countries has fueled a continual search for understanding the place constitutionalism may play in the reconstruction of mail service-colonial states. Yash Ghai has sought constitutional solutions to bug of ethnic strife, both in his practice as a constitutional counselor and in his academic piece of work (Ghai 2000). He has likewise practical this socio-legal perspective to analyzing the role of ramble formulations produced to define the relationship between the fundamental authorities in Cathay and a reintegrated Hong Kong (Ghai 1997).

With the protection of the private as its central goal, and the restraint of political power as its essential feature, the written report of constitutionalism lost steam in the Anglo-American earth. It split in two distinct directions, ane legal, the other political. On the one manus, an involvement in judicial review became the primal business concern of legal constitutionalists. Hither the idea of comparative constitutionalism became, and remains and so to some extent, equated with comparative constitutional constabulary (Capelletti and Cohen 1979). In this context the comparative approach either focuses on the specific problem of judicial review, engaging in a comparison of the process of judicial review, exercised by courts around the globe (Cappeletti 1989), or compares the case law of different jurisdictions in order to explore dissimilar ways of the constitutional resolution of particular problems from the protection of property rights (Allen 2000) to abortion and hate spoken language (Jackson and Tushnet 1999). On the other hand, the financial crisis of the land and political conservatism in the late 1970s and 1980s led to a direct political assail on the office of the state in society. Despite challenges of cultural imperialism by those advocating an 'Asian model' of autocratic paternalism, or by those who argued that 'constitutionalism is largely a cultural phenomena and not simply the product of properly designed institutions and structures of government' (Franklin and Baun 1995), information technology was the emphasis upon the demand to restrict state power that created an intellectual and political environment in which the constitutional protection of private rights and the institution of judicial review became the dominant features of a mail-Cold War international political culture.

The accent on the legal form of constitutionalism, and on judicial review in particular, shifted the focus onto the role of the judiciary, encouraging both a practical emphasis on judicial reform also as in involvement in the global expansion of judicial power (Tate and Vallinder 1995). Notwithstanding, at the aforementioned time, the failure and even plummet of governments in Africa and the Asian economic crisis in the 1990s brought a renewed focus on the question of power and the need for effective governance. This focus raised the question of how the constitutional allotment of power should in fact empower the state to reach a level of social coordination necessary for individual security and freedom.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B008043076702859X