Advertisement

Law in Books Versus Law in Action: A Review of the Socio-legal Literature

  • Christine Rothmayr AllisonEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Public Choice book series (SIPC, volume 32)

Abstract

The chapter shows that a large part of socio-legal scholarship is focusing on the mobilisation and interpretation of constitutional norms and not on constitution drafting per se. By emphasising the importance of law in action, this research reminds us of the fact that constitution making is not limited to times of constitution drafting but represents a continuous process through which constitutional norms evolve—sometimes in important ways without any formal changes at all. The literature review points to an ongoing debate between demand and supply, between bottom-up perspectives and top-down elite-driven explanations. Uncertainty enters mainly into the latter approach in order to explain the decision of political elites to adopt judicial review and entrench written rights in the national constitution or in order to understand why national governments are willing to tie their own hands by adhering to international rights institutions. Electoral uncertainty is used to explain why elites would transfer power to other institutions through judicial review and entrenching rights. In this perspective, the spread of constitutional review and rights protection around the globe needs to be primarily explained on the basis of an analysis of political and economic power relations at the national and international level. Demand-side and bottom-up explanations do not negate the important role of elites in these processes, but emphasise preceptorial power and how changing ideas and values ultimately allow for explaining the global spread of rights protection. The literature on the proliferation of human rights reveals that the focus on the national level provides a too limited perspective. Processes of diffusion are important in terms of the types of rights and the extent to which human rights are entrenched in national constitutions.

Keywords

International Criminal Court National Constitution Judicial Review Electoral Competition Legal Tradition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Alter KJ (2006) Private litigants and the new international courts. Comp Polit Stud 39(1):22–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beck CJ, Drori GS, Meyer JW (2012) World influences on human rights language in constitutions: a cross-national study. Int Sociol 27(4):483–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blount J, Elkins Z, Ginsburg T (2012) Does the process of constitution-making matter. In: Ginsburg T (ed) Comparative constitutional design. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 31–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chavez RB (2004) The rule of law in nascent democracies: judicial politics in Argentina. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Choudhry S (2010) After the rights revolution: bills of rights in the postconflict state. Ann Rev Law Soc Sci 6:301–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dahl RA (1957) Decision-making in a democracy: the supreme court as a national policy-maker. J Publ Law 6:279–295Google Scholar
  7. Dobbin F, Simmons BA, Garrett G (2007) The global diffusion of public policies: social construction, coercion, competition, or learning? Ann Rev Sociol 33:449–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Elkins Z, Ginsburg T, Melton J (2009) The endurance of national constitutions. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elkins Z (2010) Diffusion and the constitutionalization of europe. Comp Polit Stud 43:1–31Google Scholar
  10. Elkins Z, Ginsburg T, Simmons BA (2013) Getting to rights: treaty ratification, constitutional convergence, and human rights practice. Harvard Int Law J 54(1):61–95Google Scholar
  11. Epp CR (1996) Do bills of rights matter? The Canadian charter of rights and freedoms. Am Polit Sci Rev 90(4):765–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Epp CR (1998) The rights revolution. lawyers, activists, and supreme courts in comparative perspective. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  13. Epp CR (2009) Making rights real: activists, bureaucrats, and the creation of the legalistic state. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Epstein L, Knight J (1998) The choices justices make. CQ Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  15. Epstein L, Knight J (2003) Constitutional borrowing and nonborrowing. Int J Const Law 1(2):196–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Erdos D (2010) Delegating rights protection: the rise of bills of rights in the Westminster world. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Finkel J (2005) Judicial reform as insurance policy: Mexico in the 1990s. Latin Am Polit Soc 47(1):87–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Finkel JS (2008) Judicial reform as political insurance: Argentina, Peru, and Mexico in the 1990s. University of Notre Dame Press, IndianaGoogle Scholar
  19. Ginsburg T (2003) Judicial review in new democracies: constitutional courts in Asian cases. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ginsburg T (2008) The global spread of constitutional review. In: Whittington K, Kelemen RD, Caldeira GA (eds) Law and politics. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. Go J (2003) A globalizing constitutionalism? Views from the postcolony, 1945–2000. Int Sociol 18(1):71–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goldstein LF (2004) From democracy to juristocracy—review essay. Law Soc Rev 38(3):611–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Graber MA (2006) Foreword: from the countermajoritarian difficulty to juristocracy and the political construction of judicial power. Maryland Law Rev 65(1):1–14Google Scholar
  24. Helmke G, Rosenbluth F (2009) Regimes and the rule of law: judicial independence in comparative perspective. Annu Rev Polit Sci 12:345–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hirschl R (2000) The political origins of judicial empowerment through constitutionalization: lessons from four constitutional revolutions. Law Soc Inq 25:91–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hirschl R (2002) Resituating the judicialization of politics: Bush V. Gore as a global trend. Can J Law Jurisprud 15(2):191–218Google Scholar
  27. Hirschl R (2004a) “Juristocracy”—political, not juridical. Good Soc 13(3):6–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hirschl R (2004b) Towards juristocracy: the origin and consequences of the new constitutionalism. Harvard University Press, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  29. Hirschl R (2005) Reply—constitutionalism, judicial review, and progressive change: a rejoinder to McClain and fleming. Tex Law Rev 84:470–507Google Scholar
  30. Hirschl R (2008) The judicialization of politics. In: Whittington KE, Kelement DR, Caldeira GA (eds) The Oxford handbook of law and politics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 119–141Google Scholar
  31. Huntington SP (1991) The third wave. Democratization in the late twentieth century. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman and LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. Imbeau LM (2009) Testing the ‘Veil of Ignorance’ hypothesis in constitutional choice: a ‘walk-talk’ approach. J Publ Financ Publ Choice 26(1):3–21Google Scholar
  33. Imbeau LM, Jacob S (2011) Is the ‘Veil of Ignorance’ in constitutional choice a myth? An empirical exploration informed by a theory of power. In: Marciano A (ed) Constiutional mythologies. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 53–69Google Scholar
  34. Imbeau LM, Jacob S (2015) Measuring the opacity of the ‘Veil of ignorance’ in constitutions: theory, method and some results. In: Imbeau LM, Jacob S (eds) Behind a veil of ignorance? Power and uncertainty in constitutional design. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  35. McCann MW (1998) Law and political struggles for social change: puzzles, paradoxes, and promises in future research. In: Schultz DA (ed) Leveraging the law. Using the courts to achieve social change. New York, Peter Lang, pp 319–349Google Scholar
  36. Kagan RA (1996) American lawyers, legal culture, and adversarial legalism. In: Friedman LM, Scheiber HN (eds) Legal culture and the legal profession. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 7–51Google Scholar
  37. Kagan RA (2001) Adversarial legalism. The American way of law. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. Kagan RA, Axelred Lee (eds) (2001) Regulatory encounters. Multinational corporations and American adversarial legalism. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  39. Kelemen RD (2011) Eurolegalism: the transformation of law and regulation in the European Union. Harvard University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Keohane RO, Moravcsik A, Slaughter AM (2000) Legalized dispute resolution: interstate and transnational. Int Org 54(03):457–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lijphart A (1999) Patterns of democracy. Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  42. Madsen MR (2007) From cold war instrument to supreme European court: the European court of human rights at the crossroads of international and national law and politics. Law Soc Inq 32(1):137–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McCann M (1994) Rights at work. Pay equity reform and the politics of legal mobilization. Chicago University Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  44. McCann MW (2009) Interests, ideas, and institutions in comparative analysis of judicial power. Polit Res Q 62(4):834–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Melton J, Elkins Z, Ginsburg T, Leetaru K (2013) On the interpretability of law: lessons from the decoding of national constitutions. Br J Polit Sci 43(02):399–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Moravcsik A (2000) The origins of human rights regimes: democratic delegation in postwar Europe. Int Org 54(02):217–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Popova M (2012) Politicized justice in emerging democracies: a study of courts in Russia and Ukraine. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pound R (1910) Law in books and law in action. Am Law Rev 44:12–36Google Scholar
  49. Ramseyer JM (1994) The puzzling (in) dependence of courts: a comparative approach. J Legal Stud 23:721–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Roberts A (2010) The logic of discipline: global capitalism and the architecture of government. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rosenberg GN (1991) The hollow hope: can courts bring about social change?. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  52. Sarat A, Scheingold SA (eds) (2006) Cause lawyers and social movements. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  53. Segal J, Spaeth H (1993) The supreme court and the attitudinal model. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. Shapiro M (1994) The “Globalization” of judicial review. In: Friedman LM, Scheiber HN (eds) Legal culture and the legal profession. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 19–135Google Scholar
  55. Shapiro M (1999) The success of judicial review. In: Constituional dialogues in comparative perspective. McMillan Press, Houndsmills, pp 193–219Google Scholar
  56. Simmons BA, Danner A (2010) Credible commitments and the international criminal court. Int Organ 64(2):225–256Google Scholar
  57. Smithey SI, Ishiyama J (2002) Judicial activism in post-communist politics. Law Soc Rev 36(4):719–42Google Scholar
  58. Slaughter AM (2000) Judicial globalization. Va J Int Law 40(1):1103–1124Google Scholar
  59. Slaughter AM (2003) A global community of courts. Harvard Int Law J 44:191–219Google Scholar
  60. Smith M (2008) Political institutions and lesbian and gay rights in the United States and Canada. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  61. Songer DR (2008) The transformation of the supreme court of Canada. University of Toronto Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  62. Thatcher M, Sweet AS (2002) Theory and practice of delegation to non-majoritarian institutions. W Eur Polit 25(1):1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tsutsui K, Whtlinger C, Lim A (2012) International human rights law and social movements: states’ resistance and civil society’s insistence. Ann Rev Law Soc Sci 8:367–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vatter A (2009) Lijphart expanded: three dimensions of democracy in advanced OECD countries? Eur Polit Sci Rev 1(1):125–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Vibert F (2007) The rise of the unelected: democracy and the new separation of powers. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Whittington KE (2008) Constitutionalism. In: Whittington KE, Kelemen RD, Caldeira GA (eds) The Oxford handbook of law and politics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 281–99Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Département de Science PolitiqueUniversité de MontréalMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations