The theme of this book is judicial activism in industrialized democracies, with a chapter on the changing political roles of the courts in the Soviet Union. Eleven contributors describe the extent to which the highest courts in their country of expertise have embraced the making of public policy.

This volume offers different perspectives on judicial practice in the European and American contexts, both arguably characterized in the last decades by the emergence of novel normative and even policy arguments by judges. The central question deserving the attention of the contributors concerns the degree in which judicial exercises in practical reasoning may amount to forms of judicial usurpation of the legislative function by courts. Since different views as to the nature and scope of legal reasoning lead to different degrees of tolerance regarding what should be admissible to courts, that same nature and scope is thoroughly debated. The main disciplinary approach is that of general jurisprudence, but the contributions take stock of other disciplines in which judicial activism has been addressed, namely positive theories of judicial behavior. Accordingly, the book also explores the development of interdisciplinary dialogue about the theme.

Using a Colombian case study, this book assesses the potential for court rulings to enact real-life social change.

What is understood by judicial activism in different jurisdictions? Beyond a superficial agreement, are we talking about the same phenomenon across countries and systems (or over time), and to what extent? This book seeks to articulate a comparative perspective on judicial activism, bringing together a selection of theoretical and empirical studies across different socio-political and institutional contexts. The chapters not only demonstrate the complexity of the concept, but also illustrate the different meanings of judicial activism across different types of political regimes, legal systems, and judicial institutions. The book looks at three examples from western democracies with common law systems (the U.S., the U.K., and Canada), and then at six examples from civil law systems in Latin American countries with very different experiences with judicial activism, democracy, and liberal constitutionalism: Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Paraguay, and Venezuela. These case studies are analyzed with reference to a common conceptual framework, assisted by a beginning theoretical essay and two concluding cross-national studies highlighting different theoretical and methodological approaches. This book contributes to current debates on a major topic in comparative law and courts research that, despite its importance in and outside the scholarly world, remains subject to significant debate. The book should be useful for students, teachers, and researchers across a variety of disciplines - including Constitutional Law, Comparative Law, Comparative Politics, Judicial Politics, and Sociolegal Studies.

This book investigates judicial deference to the administration in judicial review, a concept and legal practice that can be found to a greater or lesser degree in every constitutional system. In each system, deference functions differently, because the positioning of the judiciary with regard to the separation of powers, the role of the courts as a mechanism of checks and balances, and the scope of judicial review differ. In addition, the way deference works within the constitutional system itself is complex, multi-faceted and often covert. Although judicial deference to the administration is a topical theme in comparative administrative law, a general examination of national systems is still lacking. As such, a theoretical and empirical review is called for. Accordingly, this book presents national reports from 15 jurisdictions, ranging from Argentina, Canada and the US, to the EU. Constituting the outcome of the 20th General Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law, held in Fukuoka, Japan in July 2018, it offers a valuable and unique resource for the study of comparative administrative law.

This book uses empirical analysis to show that courts refrain from using the proportionality test as a means of judicial activism.

This book is the first application of the comparative method to the analysis of both the basic features of judicial process and their evolution and profound transformation in Europe and America. Cappelletti discusses the challenges facing the courts of justice and other adjudicatory agencies, and evaluates the solutions adopted by contemporary legal systems.