Thesis (Ph. D.)--State University of New York at Binghamton, Department of Political Science, 2009. / Includes bibliographical references.

This thesis concerns the role of constitutional courts in maintaining stability in the country. The thesis first of all introduces the connection between the concepts of stability, security and democracy. With the help of the general theory of disputes and conflicts formed by Shonholtz and the definition of the various roles that courts can play with respect to a political system, this thesis attempts to outline how courts can contribute to security and stability in the country or how they, on the contrary, can disrupt it. In the practical part, the thesis focuses on the region of Latin America. Using the examples from selected countries (Bolivia, Venezuela and Argentina), this work tries to demonstrate the effect of decisions of constitutional courts on stability and security. Crucial in the assessment of their stabilization role is if the courts are able to evoke civic trust in a democratic system and if they have the ability to protect the system effectively. The role of courts in selected cases is assessed using the functional analysis.

As a result of frequent and flagrant human rights violations by most post-independence African regimes (particularly before the 1990s), the new or substantially revised post-1990 African constitutions entrenched fundamental rights and freedoms. The constitutions of Benin, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and South Africa established constitutional courts with mandates, inter alia, to deal with any disputes involving the violation of these fundamental human rights. Over the last three decades, the constitutional courts of these three countries have produced a considerable body of human rights jurisprudence that has begun to show that legislation and conduct hostile to human rights cannot be tolerated. This study undertakes a comparative appraisal of the extent to which differences between the common law and civil law legal traditions – on which the design of constitutional courts and the recognition of human rights in Benin, the DRC, and South Africa are based – influence the constitutional interpretation of fundamental rights and the possible implications these have for the promotion of a human rights culture. Three decades after the revival of constitutionalism and concerted attempts to protect fundamental human rights in Africa, it is important to assess whether constitutional jurisdictions established to promote and protect the constitutional order against the attacks that were commonplace before 1990s have used their human rights mandate in a progressive and transformative way such that state and non-state actors respect human rights and constitutionalism. Constitutional courts are increasingly imposing limitations on the exercise of political powers and are being used by some individuals to challenge the despotic tendencies of those who undermine the transformative human rights ideals contained in the constitutions of Benin, the DRC and South Africa. This study is primarily comparative in its methodology. It begins by examining possible influences on the nature, scope, and constitutional interpretation of African bills of rights; it then examines the background and approaches to bills of rights in the three countries. In three subsequent chapters, the study critically investigates the quality of the interpretation of equality and non-discrimination, fair trial, and political rights provisions of the constitutions of these three countries in cases brought before their Constitutional Courts. This is followed by a chapter that provides a comparative overview of trends, developments and lessons from the three constitutional courts. In conclusion, the study argues that although differences between the common law and civil law legal traditions significantly influence approaches to bills of rights and the interpretation of human rights by the three constitutional courts, these courts have the potential to improve the quality of their interpretations and learn from each other. More specifically, it is contended that many African countries, especially those operating under the civil law tradition, can learn much from the experience of the South African Constitutional Court. / Thesis (PhD)--University of Pretoria, 2021. / Centre for Human Rights / LLD / Restricted

No description available.

Thesis (LLM)--Stellenbosch University, 2013. / Bibliography / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The South African history of colonialism and apartheid created a massive housing crisis, and a basic service delivery deficit for the majority of people. Since the dawn of democracy, the current government has been trying to address this housing crisis and basic service delivery deficit. At the heart of the challenge created by this housing crisis, is the transformative vision of the Constitution and the proper role of courts, especially the Constitutional Court as the final arbiter of the rights protected and guaranteed in the Constitution. The central objective of this thesis is to investigate the extent to which the Constitutional Court has given substantive content to the right of access to adequate housing, particularly in the context of the positive duties arising out of this right as entrenched in section 26(1) and (2) of the Constitution. To this end, the history and present state of housing for residents of informal settlements, and those in inadequate housing, including the challenges presented by housing delivery, are explored. This thesis seeks to explore the concept of transformative constitutionalism, particularly its significance in relation to the right of access to adequate housing. The thesis goes on to trace the origins, strong and weak points of the reasonableness review model used by the Court to adjudicate the positive aspects of socio-economic rights, in the context of the right of access to adequate housing. This is followed by an examination of how housing as a human right has been interpreted and enforced in international, and comparative law. I then analyse the major housing jurisprudence of the Court, and suggest tentantive solutions towards redressing some of the impediments standing in the way of a substantive interpretation of the right of access to adequate housing. It is found that the Court has developed the substantive content of section 26(3) through the development of various procedural, and substantive protections of this right, including an expansive meaning of the requirement of justice and equity, requiring judicial oversight in all sales in execution against peoples’ homes, creative remedies such as mediation, joinder of a relevant municipality in eviction cases, meaningful engagement, and alternative accommodation as components of the requirement of justice and equity that would have to be met for an eviction to be lawful. In contrast, in the context of the positive duties imposed by section 26, the Court has adopted the reasonableness model of review without elaborating on the nature and scope of the right of access to adequate housing, and the values and purposes protected by this right in international law, and comparative law. Therefore, a relatively weak standard of judicial review is adopted by the Court when it adjudicates the negative duties of the right, as opposed to when it adjudicates the positive duties imposed by the right.This thesis proceeds to explore how the substantive interpretation of the right could be enhanced through following the methodology for interpretation of rights in the Bill of Rights prescribed in section 39(1) of the Constitution. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die Suid-Afrikaanse geskiedenis van kolonialisme en apartheid het 'n massiewe behuisingskrisis, en 'n tekort aan basiese dienslewering vir die meerderheid van mense geskep. Sedert die aanvang van demokrasie, poog die huidige regering om die behuisingskrisis en tekort aan basiese dienslewering aan te spreek. Aan die hart van die uitdaging wat deur hierdie behuisingskrisis geskep is, is die transformerende visie van die Grondwet en die behoorlike rol van die howe, veral die Konstitusionele Hof as die finale arbiter van die regte wat in die Grondwet beskerm en gewaarborg word. Die hoofdoel van hierdie tesis is om ondersoek in te stel na die mate waartoe die Konstitusionele Hof substantiewe inhoud gegee het aan die reg op toegang tot geskikte behuising, veral in die konteks van die positiewe verpligtinge wat voortspruit uit hierdie reg soos verskans in artikels 26(1) en (2) van die Grondwet. Om dit te bereik, word die geskiedenis en huidige stand van behuising vir inwoners van informele nedersettings, asook dié in ontoereikende behuising, ondersoek met inbegrip van die uitdagings wat deur die lewering van behuising gestel word. Hierdie tesis poog om die begrip van transformerende konstitusionalisme te ondersoek, vernaam die belang daarvan met betrekking tot die reg van toegang tot geskikte behuising. Daarbenewens, ondersoek hierdie tesis die oorsprong, asook die sterk en swak punte van die Hof se model vir redelikheidshersiening om die positiewe aspekte van sosio-ekonomiese regte te beoordeel, in die konteks van die reg op toegang tot geskikte behuising . Hierop volg 'n ondersoek na hoe behuising as 'n menslike reg in internasionale en vergelykende regskontekste geïnterpreteer en afgedwing kan word. Ek analiseer ook die hoof behuisingsregspraak van die Hof ten einde voorlopige oplossings voor te stel met betrekking tot die regstelling van sommige van die hindernisse tot 'n substantiewe interpretasie van die reg op toegang tot geskikte behuising. Ten slotte, word daar gevind dat die Hof substantiewe inhoud aan artikel 26(3) gegee het deur die ontwikkeling van die prosedurele en substantiewe beskerming van hierdie reg, insluitend 'n uitgebreide begrip van die vereistes van geregtigheid en billikheid wat geregtelike oorsig in sekere omstandighede vereis: alle verkope in eksekusie teen mense se huise, kreatiewe remedies soos bemiddeling, die noodsaaklike voeging van munisipaliteite tot uitsettings , sinvolle betrokkenheid, en die voorsiening van alternatiewe akkommodasie as ‘n komponentvan die vereiste van geregtigheid en billikheid wat nagekom moet word vir 'n uitsettingsbevel om regmatig te wees. In teenstelling, met betrekking tot die positiewe verpligtinge wat deur artikel 26 opgelê word, het die Hof die model vir redelikheidshersiening aangeneem sonder om uit te brei op die aard en omvang van die reg op toegang tot geskikte behuising, en die waardes en doelwitte wat deur hierdie reg beskerm word in internasionale en vergelykbare regskontekste. Gevolglik is 'n relatiewe swak standaard van geregtelike hersiening deur die Hof vasgestel wanneer dit die negatiewe verpligtinge van die reg beoordeel, in teenstelling met wanneer die positiewe verpligtinge van die reg beoordeel word. Hierdie tesis poog om vas te stel hoe die substantiewe interpretasie van die reg bevorder kan word ingevolge die metodologie vir die interpretasie van die regte in die Handves van Regte soos voorgeskryf in artikel 39(1) van die Grondwet.

In pursuing their goals, newly-created constitutional courts of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet republics are affected by their institutional setting and capabilities. Yet, previous studies did not explore how constitutional courts develop over time and what noteworthy implications for politics and society result from their institutional growth. To address this gap in the literature, I measured a variety of organizational characteristics and constructed an index of institutional development for the twenty eight constitutional courts in the post-communist countries from the initial year of their transitions through 2005. I argued that high values on this measure (which I labeled the judicial viability score) should enable constitutional court judges to satisfy their policy objectives and improve public and elite perceptions of the judiciary’s role in new democratic systems. To demonstrate this empirically, I tested a series of statistical models of judicial influence to show that the level of court’s institutional viability has profound implications on its legal, political, and social impact. My analyses indicated that the level of the constitutional court’s institutional viability is, indeed, an important determinant of the constitutional court judges’ ability to actively shape public policies and render decisions which are independent of, and in opposition to, the preferences of dominant political actors and government institutions. Additionally, the results demonstrated that the level of constitutional court’s viability significantly affects the perceptions of the ordinary citizens and business elites—ordinary citizens and business owners and managers are more likely to express confidence in the national legal system in countries with relatively institutionalized constitutional courts than citizens living in countries with weakly institutionalized constitutional courts. Thus, my research highlights the importance of studying the evolutionary process by which courts acquire institutional viability and, in doing so, contributes to our understanding of the factors shaping the development of democracy, the rule of law, and constitutionalism in the post-communist societies.

O papel desempenhado pelo Poder Judiciário nos mais diversos Estados passa por sensível evolução ao longo do século XX, à medida que se desenvolveram os sistemas de controle de constitucionalidade. De um lado, os atores políticos assumem especial importância nesse processo. Os modelos de revisão judicial foram reforçados, no mais das vezes, em paralelo à positivação, em âmbito constitucional, de um amplo rol de direitos fundamentais e de princípios balizadores e limitadores do poder estatal. Com isso, os elementos cotejados no processo legislativo de tomada de decisões políticas são revestidos de status constitucional e transportados para o discurso argumentativo do Direito, o que leva a um processo de judicialização da Política que permite que a atividade legiferante seja passível de confronto perante instâncias judiciárias. Os instrumentos de controle de constitucionalidade assumem, assim, novos contornos, permitindo que o Judiciário interfira no conteúdo das escolhas políticas feitas pela maioria governante. De outro lado, o Poder Judiciário particularmente as Cortes Constitucionais passa a assumir a corresponsabilidade na efetivação das metas e compromissos estatais, com o que desenvolve uma política institucional mais proativa e comprometida com a concretização substancial de valores democráticos, interferindo, assim, de maneira mais incisiva e rígida no controle do processo político. A definição de políticas fundamentais e o processo legiferante passam a contar com constante participação do Judiciário. Na realidade brasileira, a Constituição de 1988 amplia as competência do Supremo Tribunal Federal em sede de controle de constitucionalidade, inserindo o órgão de maneira efetiva nesse contexto de intervenção judicial na Política. A última década, por sua vez, marcou uma perceptível mudança em sua atividade e em sua interferência no processo de tomada de decisões políticas pelos demais Poderes. Valendo-se dos diversos instrumentos de controle que lhe são disponibilizados, assumiu o compromisso de participar na efetivação dos preceitos constitucionais pátrios mediante a revisão do conteúdo normativo decorrente das escolhas políticas tomadas em outras instâncias. Desse modo, tornou-se verdadeiro copartícipe do processo de definição de políticas legislativas nacionais, seja rechaçando normas que repute inconstitucionais, seja proferindo decisões com claros efeitos normativos que buscam readequar e conformar as escolhas dos atores políticos. Nesse processo decisório, entra em jogo a intensidade com que a Corte busca impor sua visão e suas concepções no tocante à efetivação e concretização dos compromissos constitucionais. A sobreposição de ponderações judiciais e legislativas acarreta, a seu turno, importantes efeitos sistêmicos ao diálogo interinstitucional que se desenvolve entre os Poderes, em especial no que concerne à distribuição das funções estatais dentro das premissas democráticas e ao dimensionamento do papel que compete a cada um dos Poderes no processo de efetivação e proteção da Constituição. / The role played by the Judiciary Branch in the several different States has undergone a sensible evolution throughout the 20th century to the extent that the judicial review systems develop. On the one side, the political actors assume special importance in this process. The models of judicial review have been reinforced, often times, in parallel with the enactment, in the constitutional level, of an ample list of fundamental rights and principles governing and limiting the state power. Therefore, the elements collated in the legislative process of taking political decisions are vested with constitutional status and transported to the argumentative discourse of Law, which leads to a process of judicialization of politics that allows the legislative activity to be subject to confrontation with judiciary instances. The instruments of judicial review assume, therefore, new contours allowing the Judiciary to interfere in the content of the political choices made by the governing majority. On the other side, the Judiciary Branch, and particularly the Constitutional Courts, begins to assume the co-responsibility in the effectiveness of the state goals and undertakings, resulting in the development of an institutional policy more proactive and committed to the substantial concretization of democratic values, thus interfering, in a more incisive and rigid manner, in the control of the political process. The definition of fundamental policies and the lawmaking process start to count with the participation of the Judiciary. In the Brazilian reality, the 1988 Constitution has enlarged the competence of the Brazilian Supreme Court in matters of judicial review, inserting this organ in an effective manner in the context of judicial intervention in politics. The last decade, in turn, has marked a perceptible change in its activity and in its interference in the process of decision-making political decisions by the remainder Branches of the State. By using the diverse instruments of control available to it, it has assumed the undertaking to participate in the effectiveness of the national constitutional principles by means of the review of the normative content arising from the political choices made in other instances. Therefore, it has become a true co-participant in the process of defining national legislative policy, be it by rejecting norms which it reputes unconstitutional, or by enacting decisions with clear normative effects that seek to realign and conform the choices of the political actors. In this decision-making process, comes into play the intensity with which the Court seeks to impose its view and its conceptions regarding the effectiveness and concretization of the constitutional undertakings. The overlap of judicial and legislative considerations triggers, in its turn, important systemic effects in the inter-institutions dialogue developing among the Branches, particularly with regard to the distribution of the state functions within the democratic premises and the dimension of the role played by each Branch in the effectiveness and protection of the Constitution.

Submitted by Filipe dos Santos (fsantos@pucsp.br) on 2019-03-19T12:32:08Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Vinícius Caldas da Gama e Abreu.pdf: 1106656 bytes, checksum: 4d41a092616fb54d8b5e40b6c614bc6c (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2019-03-19T12:32:08Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Vinícius Caldas da Gama e Abreu.pdf: 1106656 bytes, checksum: 4d41a092616fb54d8b5e40b6c614bc6c (MD5) Previous issue date: 2019-02-21 / The primary concern of this study is to present a theoretical analysis of the constitutional complaint and to demonstrate how its use in Brazilian Courts is being carried out, especially after the advent of the Civil Procedure Code in 2015. Since its historical creation by Supreme Court jurisprudence, grounded on the doctrine of implied powers, the constitutional complaint underwent considerable evolution, and received constitutional status by the original constituent power of 1988 and legislative enlargement by the Civil Procedure Code in 2015, which consolidated it as an instrument of frequent use for the defense of the Court’s decision-making authority and of its competence. On that subject, this research will explore the legal nature of the complaint, proving it is a constitutional action, and will deal with each case of use of the constitutional complaint brought by the Constitution of 1988 and by article 988 of the Civil Procedure Code, relevant procedural issues, such as the structure and content of the initial petition, the legitimacy to act, the possibility of third party interventions, the possibility of granting interim injunctions, the structure and effects of the decision-making act and ways of reviewing the decision, in addition to issues that are subject of great controversy, such as the use of the constitutional complaint within State’s Small Claim Courts jurisdiction / O presente estudo tem por objetivos principais a apresentação de uma análise teórica sobre a reclamação constitucional e a demonstração de como está sendo realizada sua aplicação prática nos Tribunais brasileiros, principalmente depois do advento do Código de Processo Civil de 2015. Desde sua criação histórica pela jurisprudência do Supremo Tribunal Federal, fundamentada na teoria dos poderes implícitos, a reclamação constitucional experimentou considerável evolução, ganhando previsão constitucional expressa pelo constituinte originário de 1988 e ampliação legislativa pelo legislador do Código de Processo Civil e 2015, o que lhe consolidou como instrumento de uso frequente para a defesa da autoridade de decisão de Tribunal e de sua competência. Nessa seara, serão objeto desse estudo as discussões acerca da natureza jurídica da reclamação, com a demonstração de que se trata de ação constitucional, cada uma das hipóteses de cabimento trazidas pela Constituição da República de 1988 e pelo art. 988 do Código de Processo Civil, as questões processuais relevantes, tais como a estrutura e conteúdo da petição inicial, a legitimidade das partes, a possibilidade de intervenção de terceiros e de concessão de tutela provisória, a estrutura e efeitos do ato decisório e os meio impugnativos dessa decisão, além de questões objeto de grande controvérsia, tais como a utilização da reclamação no âmbito dos Juizados Especiais Estaduais

O papel desempenhado pelo Poder Judiciário nos mais diversos Estados passa por sensível evolução ao longo do século XX, à medida que se desenvolveram os sistemas de controle de constitucionalidade. De um lado, os atores políticos assumem especial importância nesse processo. Os modelos de revisão judicial foram reforçados, no mais das vezes, em paralelo à positivação, em âmbito constitucional, de um amplo rol de direitos fundamentais e de princípios balizadores e limitadores do poder estatal. Com isso, os elementos cotejados no processo legislativo de tomada de decisões políticas são revestidos de status constitucional e transportados para o discurso argumentativo do Direito, o que leva a um processo de judicialização da Política que permite que a atividade legiferante seja passível de confronto perante instâncias judiciárias. Os instrumentos de controle de constitucionalidade assumem, assim, novos contornos, permitindo que o Judiciário interfira no conteúdo das escolhas políticas feitas pela maioria governante. De outro lado, o Poder Judiciário particularmente as Cortes Constitucionais passa a assumir a corresponsabilidade na efetivação das metas e compromissos estatais, com o que desenvolve uma política institucional mais proativa e comprometida com a concretização substancial de valores democráticos, interferindo, assim, de maneira mais incisiva e rígida no controle do processo político. A definição de políticas fundamentais e o processo legiferante passam a contar com constante participação do Judiciário. Na realidade brasileira, a Constituição de 1988 amplia as competência do Supremo Tribunal Federal em sede de controle de constitucionalidade, inserindo o órgão de maneira efetiva nesse contexto de intervenção judicial na Política. A última década, por sua vez, marcou uma perceptível mudança em sua atividade e em sua interferência no processo de tomada de decisões políticas pelos demais Poderes. Valendo-se dos diversos instrumentos de controle que lhe são disponibilizados, assumiu o compromisso de participar na efetivação dos preceitos constitucionais pátrios mediante a revisão do conteúdo normativo decorrente das escolhas políticas tomadas em outras instâncias. Desse modo, tornou-se verdadeiro copartícipe do processo de definição de políticas legislativas nacionais, seja rechaçando normas que repute inconstitucionais, seja proferindo decisões com claros efeitos normativos que buscam readequar e conformar as escolhas dos atores políticos. Nesse processo decisório, entra em jogo a intensidade com que a Corte busca impor sua visão e suas concepções no tocante à efetivação e concretização dos compromissos constitucionais. A sobreposição de ponderações judiciais e legislativas acarreta, a seu turno, importantes efeitos sistêmicos ao diálogo interinstitucional que se desenvolve entre os Poderes, em especial no que concerne à distribuição das funções estatais dentro das premissas democráticas e ao dimensionamento do papel que compete a cada um dos Poderes no processo de efetivação e proteção da Constituição. / The role played by the Judiciary Branch in the several different States has undergone a sensible evolution throughout the 20th century to the extent that the judicial review systems develop. On the one side, the political actors assume special importance in this process. The models of judicial review have been reinforced, often times, in parallel with the enactment, in the constitutional level, of an ample list of fundamental rights and principles governing and limiting the state power. Therefore, the elements collated in the legislative process of taking political decisions are vested with constitutional status and transported to the argumentative discourse of Law, which leads to a process of judicialization of politics that allows the legislative activity to be subject to confrontation with judiciary instances. The instruments of judicial review assume, therefore, new contours allowing the Judiciary to interfere in the content of the political choices made by the governing majority. On the other side, the Judiciary Branch, and particularly the Constitutional Courts, begins to assume the co-responsibility in the effectiveness of the state goals and undertakings, resulting in the development of an institutional policy more proactive and committed to the substantial concretization of democratic values, thus interfering, in a more incisive and rigid manner, in the control of the political process. The definition of fundamental policies and the lawmaking process start to count with the participation of the Judiciary. In the Brazilian reality, the 1988 Constitution has enlarged the competence of the Brazilian Supreme Court in matters of judicial review, inserting this organ in an effective manner in the context of judicial intervention in politics. The last decade, in turn, has marked a perceptible change in its activity and in its interference in the process of decision-making political decisions by the remainder Branches of the State. By using the diverse instruments of control available to it, it has assumed the undertaking to participate in the effectiveness of the national constitutional principles by means of the review of the normative content arising from the political choices made in other instances. Therefore, it has become a true co-participant in the process of defining national legislative policy, be it by rejecting norms which it reputes unconstitutional, or by enacting decisions with clear normative effects that seek to realign and conform the choices of the political actors. In this decision-making process, comes into play the intensity with which the Court seeks to impose its view and its conceptions regarding the effectiveness and concretization of the constitutional undertakings. The overlap of judicial and legislative considerations triggers, in its turn, important systemic effects in the inter-institutions dialogue developing among the Branches, particularly with regard to the distribution of the state functions within the democratic premises and the dimension of the role played by each Branch in the effectiveness and protection of the Constitution.

Europa-Univ., Habil.-Schr.--Zugl.: Frankfurt (Oder), 2005. / Literaturverz. S. [341] - 363.