During the last two decades the judiciary has come to play an increasingly important political role in Latin America. Constitutional courts and supreme courts are more active in counterbalancing executive and legislative power than ever before. At the same time, the lack of effective citizenship rights has prompted ordinary people to press their claims and secure their rights through the courts. This collection of essays analyzes the diverse manifestations of the judicialization of politics in contemporary Latin America, assessing their positive and negative consequences for state-society relations, the rule of law, and democratic governance in the region. With individual chapters exploring Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Peru and Venezuela, it advances a comparative framework for thinking about the nature of the judicialization of politics within contemporary Latin American democracies.

The transition to democracy in Latin America encompasses adjustments in norms and institutions regarding the strictures of the rule of law. This book addresses the critical role of the judiciary in the transition. The contributors examine the significance of the independence of the judiciary, which ensures institutional integrity and freedom from p

This present book examines some of the key features of the interplay between legal history, authoritarian rule and political transitions in Brazil and other countries from the end of 20th Century until today. This book casts light on these aspects of the role of law and legal actors/institutions. In the context of transition from authoritarian rule to democratic state, Brazil has produced a significant literature on the challenges and shortcomings of the transition, but little attention has been given to the role of law and legal actors/institutions. Different approaches focus on the legal mechanisms, discourses and practices used by the military regime and by the players involved in the political transition process in Brazil. A comparative perspective that takes into account different political transitions – and their legal consequences – in Europe and Latin America complements the analysis. Part 1 (4 essays) discusses some of the central issues of political transition and legal history in contemporary Brazil, focusing on the time of the transition (and its effects on transitional justice) with different perspectives, from racial and gender issues to constitutional reform and police repression. Part 2 (3 essays) brings the comparative studies on South American experiences. Part 3 (4 essays) analyses different cases of transition to democracy in Chile, Portugal, Spain and Italy. Part 4 (3 essays) proposes a historiographical and methodological approach, considering the politics of time involved in the interplay between political transitions and legal history.

By the end of the 1960s, most of Latin America was under repressive military rule. Conversely, the 1980s have seen the emergence of formal, constitutional democracies in Latin America and the Caribbean. Authoritarians and Democrats describes these changes and the future prospects for constitutional government in Latin America.

Latin America was one of the earliest and most enthusiastic adopters of what has come to be known as the judicialization of politics - the use of law and legal institutions as tools of social contestation to curb the abuse of power in government, resolve policy disputes, and enforce and expand civil, political, and socio-economic rights. Almost forty years into this experiment, The Limits of Judicialization brings together a cross-disciplinary group of scholars to assess the role that law and courts play in Latin American politics. Featuring studies of hot-button topics including abortion, state violence, judicial corruption, and corruption prosecutions, this volume argues that the institutional and cultural changes that empowered courts, what the editors call the 'judicialization superstructure,' often fall short of the promise of greater accountability and rights protection. Illustrative and expansive, this volume offers a truly interdisciplinary analysis of the limits of judicialized politics.

Ideas about law are undergoing dramatic change in Latin America. The consolidation of democracy as the predominant form of government and the proliferation of transnational legal instruments have ushered in an era of new legal conceptions and practices. Law has become a core focus of political movements and policy-making. This volume explores the changing legal ideas and practices that accompany, cause, and are a consequence of the judicialization of politics in Latin America. It is the product of a three-year international research effort, sponsored by the Law and Society Association, the Latin American Studies Association, and the Ford Foundation, that gathered leading and emerging scholars of Latin American courts from across disciplines and across continents.

This book examines the political evolution of the judiciary – a usually overlooked political actor – and its capacity to contribute to the process of democratic consolidation in Latin America during the 1990s. Calleros analyzes twelve countries in order to assess the independence, impartiality, political strength and efficiency of the judicial branch. The picture that emerges – with the one exception of Costa Rica – is the persistence of weak judicial systems, unable in practice to check other branches of government, including the executive and the military, while not quite effective in fully protecting human rights or in implementing due process of law guarantees. Aggravating issues, such as corruption, heavy case backlogs, overcrowding of prisons, circumvention of laws and personal vulnerability of judges, make the judiciary the least evolved of the three branches of government in the Latin American transitions to democracy.

What explains the success of criminal prosecutions against former Latin American officials accused of human rights violations? Why did some judiciaries evolve from unresponsive bureaucracies into protectors of victim rights? Using a theory of judicial action inspired by sociological institutionalism, this book argues that this was the result of deep transformations in the legal preferences of judges and prosecutors. Judicial actors discarded long-standing positivist legal criteria, historically protective of conservative interests, and embraced doctrines grounded in international human rights law, which made possible innovative readings of constitutions and criminal codes. Litigants were responsible for this shift in legal visions by activating informal mechanisms of ideational change and providing the skills necessary to deal with complex and unusual cases. Through an in-depth exploration of the interactions between judges, prosecutors and human rights lawyers in three countries, the book asks how changing ideas about the law and standards of adjudication condition the exercise of judicial power.