Courts, Constitutionalism, and State Capacity: A Preliminary Inquiry

IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW American Journal of Comparative Law Pub Date : 2022-05-21 DOI:10.1093/ajcl/avac009
Madhav Khosla, M. Tushnet
{"title":"Courts, Constitutionalism, and State Capacity: A Preliminary Inquiry","authors":"Madhav Khosla, M. Tushnet","doi":"10.1093/ajcl/avac009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Modern constitutional theory deals almost exclusively with the mechanisms for controlling the exercise of public power. In particular, the focus of constitutional scholars lies in explaining and justifying how courts can effectively keep the exercise of public power within bounds. But there is little point in worrying about the excesses of government power when the government lacks the capacity to get things done in the first place. In this Article, we examine relations between the courts, constitutionalism, and state capacity other than through limiting state power. Through a series of case studies, we suggest how courts confront the problem of state building, and how the question of state capacity informs constitutional doctrine. Our studies consist of litigation over life-saving medication in Brazil, “engagement” remedies in South Africa, the problem of pretrial detention in India, and the validity of India’s recent biometric identification project. As we show, state capacity is a crucial variable in the development of constitutional doctrine—and while engaging with the issue of state capacity, courts often play a role in facilitating its expansion. The case studies identify a number of mechanisms that courts use to encourage capacity development: providing incentives to enhance capacity, guiding and directing the state to perform specific actions, compensating for weak capacity by absorbing the problem, and endorsing measures that purport to increase capacity. We then offer an expressly idealized model by which courts can negotiate capacity-related concerns. Courts can, in certain instances, respond to the problem of state capacity through weak-form, dialogic, experimentalist forms of review. The precise role that courts can and should play in this regard remains to be fully studied, but focusing on the question of state capacity allows us to better explain contemporary constitutional doctrine in several jurisdictions, and highlights the challenges involved in at once creating and limiting state power.","PeriodicalId":51579,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Comparative Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avac009","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Modern constitutional theory deals almost exclusively with the mechanisms for controlling the exercise of public power. In particular, the focus of constitutional scholars lies in explaining and justifying how courts can effectively keep the exercise of public power within bounds. But there is little point in worrying about the excesses of government power when the government lacks the capacity to get things done in the first place. In this Article, we examine relations between the courts, constitutionalism, and state capacity other than through limiting state power. Through a series of case studies, we suggest how courts confront the problem of state building, and how the question of state capacity informs constitutional doctrine. Our studies consist of litigation over life-saving medication in Brazil, “engagement” remedies in South Africa, the problem of pretrial detention in India, and the validity of India’s recent biometric identification project. As we show, state capacity is a crucial variable in the development of constitutional doctrine—and while engaging with the issue of state capacity, courts often play a role in facilitating its expansion. The case studies identify a number of mechanisms that courts use to encourage capacity development: providing incentives to enhance capacity, guiding and directing the state to perform specific actions, compensating for weak capacity by absorbing the problem, and endorsing measures that purport to increase capacity. We then offer an expressly idealized model by which courts can negotiate capacity-related concerns. Courts can, in certain instances, respond to the problem of state capacity through weak-form, dialogic, experimentalist forms of review. The precise role that courts can and should play in this regard remains to be fully studied, but focusing on the question of state capacity allows us to better explain contemporary constitutional doctrine in several jurisdictions, and highlights the challenges involved in at once creating and limiting state power.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
法院、宪政与国家能力:初步探究
现代宪法理论几乎只涉及控制公共权力行使的机制。特别是,宪法学者的焦点在于解释和证明法院如何有效地将公共权力的行使限制在一定范围内。但是,当政府一开始就缺乏办事能力时,担心政府权力过度是没有意义的。在本文中,我们考察了法院、宪政和国家能力之间的关系,而不是通过限制国家权力。通过一系列案例研究,我们建议法院如何面对国家建设问题,以及国家能力问题如何影响宪法原则。我们的研究包括巴西的救命药物诉讼,南非的“约定”补救措施,印度的审前拘留问题,以及印度最近的生物识别项目的有效性。正如我们所展示的,国家行为能力是宪法理论发展的一个关键变量——在涉及国家行为能力问题时,法院往往在促进其扩张方面发挥作用。案例研究确定了法院用来鼓励能力发展的一些机制:提供激励措施以提高能力,指导和指导国家采取具体行动,通过吸收问题来补偿能力薄弱,以及支持旨在提高能力的措施。然后,我们提供了一个明确的理想化模型,法院可以通过该模型来协商与能力相关的问题。在某些情况下,法院可以通过弱形式的、对话的、实验性的审查形式来回应国家能力的问题。法院在这方面能够和应该发挥的确切作用仍有待充分研究,但关注国家能力问题使我们能够更好地解释几个司法管辖区的当代宪法理论,并突出了同时创造和限制国家权力所涉及的挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
20.00%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Comparative Law is a scholarly quarterly journal devoted to comparative law, comparing the laws of one or more nations with those of another or discussing one jurisdiction"s law in order for the reader to understand how it might differ from that of the United States or another country. It publishes features articles contributed by major scholars and comments by law student writers. The American Society of Comparative Law, Inc. (ASCL), formerly the American Association for the Comparative Study of Law, Inc., is an organization of institutional and individual members devoted to study, research, and write on foreign and comparative law as well as private international law.
期刊最新文献
Sovereignty, Territoriality, and Private International Law in Classical Muslim International Law Beyond Transplant: A Network Innovation Model of Transnational Regulatory Change The Irony of British Human Rights Exceptionalism, 1948–1998 Are Political “Attacks” on the Judiciary Ever Justifiable? The Relationship Between Unfair Criticism and Public Accountability Is Neutrality Possible? A Critique of the CJEU on Headscarves in the Workplace from a Comparative Perspective
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1