导言:立法上的狭隘倾向

Tímea Drinóczi, Ronan Cormacain
{"title":"导言:立法上的狭隘倾向","authors":"Tímea Drinóczi, Ronan Cormacain","doi":"10.1080/20508840.2021.1955483","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The ongoing autocratisation processes in the last couple of years have led us to ask the question of how legislation is actually made in a political and legal environment in which illiberal and populist governments govern and systematically disregard the Rule of Law, democracy and relativize human rights protection. Our goal was not to investigate illiberalism as a whole, but, instead, examine the interrelationship between illiberal tendencies in government and the law-making process. Do illiberal states show evidence of a particular type of law-making process? Or do certain types of law-making process make it easier to have illiberal tendencies in government? This special issue collects the most prominent examples from Poland, Hungary, Turkey, Brazil, Italy, and Indonesia, and even if it is difficult to draw firm and over-arching conclusions from the different states surveyed in this issue, it is possible to tentatively identify some common themes. Firstly, some states reveal a strong reliance on pure majoritarian principle, the instrumental use of legislation, the increased use of accelerated legislative processes and omnibus legislation, disregard of compromised procedural and semi-procedural constitutional review of legislation. Secondly, there is the reduction of the importance of the citizen in the legislative process. Thirdly, illiberal projects are easier to implement in a parliamentary system than in a presidential system. Fourthly, the independence of the judiciary from the ruling party can be compromised where constitutional or supreme courts are “packed” by the executive with judges who can be seen to favour that ruling party.","PeriodicalId":42455,"journal":{"name":"Theory and Practice of Legislation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Introduction: illiberal tendencies in law-making\",\"authors\":\"Tímea Drinóczi, Ronan Cormacain\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20508840.2021.1955483\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The ongoing autocratisation processes in the last couple of years have led us to ask the question of how legislation is actually made in a political and legal environment in which illiberal and populist governments govern and systematically disregard the Rule of Law, democracy and relativize human rights protection. Our goal was not to investigate illiberalism as a whole, but, instead, examine the interrelationship between illiberal tendencies in government and the law-making process. Do illiberal states show evidence of a particular type of law-making process? Or do certain types of law-making process make it easier to have illiberal tendencies in government? This special issue collects the most prominent examples from Poland, Hungary, Turkey, Brazil, Italy, and Indonesia, and even if it is difficult to draw firm and over-arching conclusions from the different states surveyed in this issue, it is possible to tentatively identify some common themes. Firstly, some states reveal a strong reliance on pure majoritarian principle, the instrumental use of legislation, the increased use of accelerated legislative processes and omnibus legislation, disregard of compromised procedural and semi-procedural constitutional review of legislation. Secondly, there is the reduction of the importance of the citizen in the legislative process. Thirdly, illiberal projects are easier to implement in a parliamentary system than in a presidential system. Fourthly, the independence of the judiciary from the ruling party can be compromised where constitutional or supreme courts are “packed” by the executive with judges who can be seen to favour that ruling party.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42455,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Theory and Practice of Legislation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Theory and Practice of Legislation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20508840.2021.1955483\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory and Practice of Legislation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20508840.2021.1955483","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

摘要过去几年持续的独裁进程让我们不禁要问,在一个非自由和民粹主义政府执政、系统地无视法治、民主和相对化人权保护的政治和法律环境中,立法实际上是如何制定的。我们的目标不是从整体上调查非自由主义,而是研究政府中的非自由倾向与立法过程之间的相互关系。不自由的州是否展示了特定类型的立法过程的证据?或者某些类型的立法程序会让政府中更容易出现不自由的倾向吗?本期特刊收集了波兰、匈牙利、土耳其、巴西、意大利和印度尼西亚最突出的例子,即使很难从本期调查的不同国家得出坚定而全面的结论,也可以初步确定一些共同的主题。首先,一些州表现出强烈依赖纯粹多数主义原则,工具性地使用立法,越来越多地使用加速立法程序和综合立法,无视对立法的程序性和半程序性宪法审查。其次,公民在立法过程中的重要性有所降低。第三,非自由项目在议会制度中比在总统制度中更容易实施。第四,如果宪法法院或最高法院由行政部门“挤满”了可以被视为支持执政党的法官,那么司法机构与执政党的独立性可能会受到损害。
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
Introduction: illiberal tendencies in law-making
ABSTRACT The ongoing autocratisation processes in the last couple of years have led us to ask the question of how legislation is actually made in a political and legal environment in which illiberal and populist governments govern and systematically disregard the Rule of Law, democracy and relativize human rights protection. Our goal was not to investigate illiberalism as a whole, but, instead, examine the interrelationship between illiberal tendencies in government and the law-making process. Do illiberal states show evidence of a particular type of law-making process? Or do certain types of law-making process make it easier to have illiberal tendencies in government? This special issue collects the most prominent examples from Poland, Hungary, Turkey, Brazil, Italy, and Indonesia, and even if it is difficult to draw firm and over-arching conclusions from the different states surveyed in this issue, it is possible to tentatively identify some common themes. Firstly, some states reveal a strong reliance on pure majoritarian principle, the instrumental use of legislation, the increased use of accelerated legislative processes and omnibus legislation, disregard of compromised procedural and semi-procedural constitutional review of legislation. Secondly, there is the reduction of the importance of the citizen in the legislative process. Thirdly, illiberal projects are easier to implement in a parliamentary system than in a presidential system. Fourthly, the independence of the judiciary from the ruling party can be compromised where constitutional or supreme courts are “packed” by the executive with judges who can be seen to favour that ruling party.
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
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: The Theory and Practice of Legislation aims to offer an international and interdisciplinary forum for the examination of legislation. The focus of the journal, which succeeds the former title Legisprudence, remains with legislation in its broadest sense. Legislation is seen as both process and product, reflection of theoretical assumptions and a skill. The journal addresses formal legislation, and its alternatives (such as covenants, regulation by non-state actors etc.). The editors welcome articles on systematic (as opposed to historical) issues, including drafting techniques, the introduction of open standards, evidence-based drafting, pre- and post-legislative scrutiny for effectiveness and efficiency, the utility and necessity of codification, IT in legislation, the legitimacy of legislation in view of fundamental principles and rights, law and language, and the link between legislator and judge. Comparative and interdisciplinary approaches are encouraged. But dogmatic descriptions of positive law are outside the scope of the journal. The journal offers a combination of themed issues and general issues. All articles are submitted to double blind review.
期刊最新文献
Regulatory capture in energy sector: evidence from Indonesia Operationalisation of legislation and the will of legislators in the judgments of international courts of war crimes and post-war recovery Observing law-making patterns in times of crisis Exploring the relationship between law and governance: a proposal Governing during the COVID-19 pandemic
×
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