法院陷入冲突?制度信任与社会冲突

Joseph M. Cox
{"title":"法院陷入冲突?制度信任与社会冲突","authors":"Joseph M. Cox","doi":"10.5935/JP.V22I29.7499","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"According to positivity theory, the public's exposure to the American judicial system and the judiciary's unique set of symbols and processes tends to lead individuals to confer on the institution legitimacy and trust through mechanisms often not available to other political actors. This paper focuses on whether this theory operates outside of the American context, arguing that the legitimacy conferred by domestic audiences upon domestic judiciaries will be less variable than the legitimacy reposed in other governing actors. However, moving to a comparative context implicates a number of potentially additional factors, including the influence of variation across regime-types, legal systems, and issue areas. Are courts inherently unique, as suggested by positivity theory, or does the resiliency of courts vary across different institutional contexts? In order to answer this question, this study leverages survey data from the Latinobarometro and the Afrobarometer to measure levels of public trust in several governing institutions, including, but not limited to, the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature, to analyze whether institutional legitimacy varies across different governmental actors in the presence of public opposition to government policy or across different legal institutional contexts. Public discontent with policy is measured using data coded by the Social Conflict Analysis Database, which identifies instances of demonstrations, riots, and strikes. As a measure of the institutional context within which a judiciary operates, the analyses leverage a latent variable of judicial independence created by Linzer and Staton (2015). The paper's statistical analyses provide evidence to support the distinctiveness of judiciaries, finding that social conflict can impact negatively public trust in executives and legislative institutions, yet exert no influence on public trust in judiciaries. Furthermore, the empirical results indicate that high levels of judicial independence can be converted to higher levels of trust in the judiciary.","PeriodicalId":325417,"journal":{"name":"Revista Juris Poiesis","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Courts Caught in Conflict? Institutional Trust and Social Conflict\",\"authors\":\"Joseph M. Cox\",\"doi\":\"10.5935/JP.V22I29.7499\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"According to positivity theory, the public's exposure to the American judicial system and the judiciary's unique set of symbols and processes tends to lead individuals to confer on the institution legitimacy and trust through mechanisms often not available to other political actors. This paper focuses on whether this theory operates outside of the American context, arguing that the legitimacy conferred by domestic audiences upon domestic judiciaries will be less variable than the legitimacy reposed in other governing actors. However, moving to a comparative context implicates a number of potentially additional factors, including the influence of variation across regime-types, legal systems, and issue areas. Are courts inherently unique, as suggested by positivity theory, or does the resiliency of courts vary across different institutional contexts? In order to answer this question, this study leverages survey data from the Latinobarometro and the Afrobarometer to measure levels of public trust in several governing institutions, including, but not limited to, the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature, to analyze whether institutional legitimacy varies across different governmental actors in the presence of public opposition to government policy or across different legal institutional contexts. Public discontent with policy is measured using data coded by the Social Conflict Analysis Database, which identifies instances of demonstrations, riots, and strikes. As a measure of the institutional context within which a judiciary operates, the analyses leverage a latent variable of judicial independence created by Linzer and Staton (2015). The paper's statistical analyses provide evidence to support the distinctiveness of judiciaries, finding that social conflict can impact negatively public trust in executives and legislative institutions, yet exert no influence on public trust in judiciaries. Furthermore, the empirical results indicate that high levels of judicial independence can be converted to higher levels of trust in the judiciary.\",\"PeriodicalId\":325417,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista Juris Poiesis\",\"volume\":\"52 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista Juris Poiesis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5935/JP.V22I29.7499\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Juris Poiesis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5935/JP.V22I29.7499","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

根据实证理论,公众对美国司法制度及其独特的符号和程序的接触,往往会导致个人通过其他政治行为体往往无法获得的机制赋予该制度合法性和信任。本文关注的是这一理论是否适用于美国语境之外,认为国内受众赋予国内司法机构的合法性将比其他治理行为体赋予的合法性变化更小。然而,转移到比较背景下涉及到一些潜在的额外因素,包括不同政权类型、法律制度和问题领域的差异的影响。法院本身是独一无二的,正如积极理论所建议的那样,还是法院的弹性在不同的制度背景下有所不同?为了回答这个问题,本研究利用拉丁晴雨表和非洲晴雨表的调查数据来衡量公众对几个治理机构(包括但不限于司法、行政和立法机构)的信任水平,以分析在公众反对政府政策的情况下,不同政府行为者或不同法律制度背景下,制度合法性是否会有所不同。公众对政策的不满是通过社会冲突分析数据库编码的数据来衡量的,该数据库识别示威、骚乱和罢工的实例。作为对司法机构运作的制度背景的衡量,这些分析利用了Linzer和Staton(2015)创建的司法独立的潜在变量。本文的统计分析为支持司法机构的独特性提供了证据,发现社会冲突会对行政机构和立法机构的公众信任产生负面影响,但对公众对司法机构的信任没有影响。此外,实证结果表明,高水平的司法独立可以转化为更高水平的司法信任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Courts Caught in Conflict? Institutional Trust and Social Conflict
According to positivity theory, the public's exposure to the American judicial system and the judiciary's unique set of symbols and processes tends to lead individuals to confer on the institution legitimacy and trust through mechanisms often not available to other political actors. This paper focuses on whether this theory operates outside of the American context, arguing that the legitimacy conferred by domestic audiences upon domestic judiciaries will be less variable than the legitimacy reposed in other governing actors. However, moving to a comparative context implicates a number of potentially additional factors, including the influence of variation across regime-types, legal systems, and issue areas. Are courts inherently unique, as suggested by positivity theory, or does the resiliency of courts vary across different institutional contexts? In order to answer this question, this study leverages survey data from the Latinobarometro and the Afrobarometer to measure levels of public trust in several governing institutions, including, but not limited to, the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature, to analyze whether institutional legitimacy varies across different governmental actors in the presence of public opposition to government policy or across different legal institutional contexts. Public discontent with policy is measured using data coded by the Social Conflict Analysis Database, which identifies instances of demonstrations, riots, and strikes. As a measure of the institutional context within which a judiciary operates, the analyses leverage a latent variable of judicial independence created by Linzer and Staton (2015). The paper's statistical analyses provide evidence to support the distinctiveness of judiciaries, finding that social conflict can impact negatively public trust in executives and legislative institutions, yet exert no influence on public trust in judiciaries. Furthermore, the empirical results indicate that high levels of judicial independence can be converted to higher levels of trust in the judiciary.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Neurociência e Direito Penal: Discussões sobre a (Im)possibilidade de alteração no conceito de culpabilidade A Ética da Tolerância como possibilidade de abertura hermenêutica do Direito: uma análise sobre a Jurisdição Constitucional Brasileira A necessidade da citação para garantia do devido processo legal nas execuções fiscais: inconstitucionalidade do art. 174, I do Código Tributário Nacional e do Recurso Especial nº 1.120.295/SP O Blockchain como meio de prova no Direito Processual Civil Brasileiro O Ciclo de Políticas Públicas para o enfrentamento da exploração sexual comercial de crianças e adolescentes nos Municípios Brasileiros
×
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