谁干预加拿大最高法院案件?

Danielle McNabb
{"title":"谁干预加拿大最高法院案件?","authors":"Danielle McNabb","doi":"10.1017/S000842392300046X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract With the patriation of the Constitution in 1982, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) inherited extraordinary political powers. In response to the Court's expanded power of judicial review, there was a sizeable increase in the number of political actors “intervening” in SCC cases. Scholars of Canadian law and politics are deeply divided on whether civil society participation in the courts—particularly as intervenors—is democratically legitimate. This important debate cannot be settled without an empirical evaluation of who intervenes. This research note provides an analysis of all the Charter cases heard by the SCC between 2013 and 2021. In contrast to the field's dominant theory on interest-group legal mobilization—the Court Party thesis—the findings reveal that equity-deserving interest groups, such as those representing women, have an irregular presence in Court. Instead, powerful actors such as governments and legal associations make up a majority of the “repeat player” intervenors. While further research is warranted, the research note concludes that without the maintenance of sufficient support structures, intervention may be unable to perform a democratizing function.","PeriodicalId":9491,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Political Science","volume":"21 1","pages":"715 - 728"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Who Intervenes in Supreme Court Cases in Canada?\",\"authors\":\"Danielle McNabb\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S000842392300046X\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract With the patriation of the Constitution in 1982, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) inherited extraordinary political powers. In response to the Court's expanded power of judicial review, there was a sizeable increase in the number of political actors “intervening” in SCC cases. Scholars of Canadian law and politics are deeply divided on whether civil society participation in the courts—particularly as intervenors—is democratically legitimate. This important debate cannot be settled without an empirical evaluation of who intervenes. This research note provides an analysis of all the Charter cases heard by the SCC between 2013 and 2021. In contrast to the field's dominant theory on interest-group legal mobilization—the Court Party thesis—the findings reveal that equity-deserving interest groups, such as those representing women, have an irregular presence in Court. Instead, powerful actors such as governments and legal associations make up a majority of the “repeat player” intervenors. While further research is warranted, the research note concludes that without the maintenance of sufficient support structures, intervention may be unable to perform a democratizing function.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9491,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Political Science\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"715 - 728\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Political Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S000842392300046X\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S000842392300046X","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

随着1982年加拿大宪法的生效,加拿大最高法院(SCC)继承了非凡的政治权力。由于最高法院扩大了司法审查的权力,政治行为者“干预”最高法院案件的人数大幅增加。加拿大法律和政治学者在公民社会参与法庭——尤其是作为干预者——是否具有民主合法性的问题上存在严重分歧。如果没有对干预者的经验评估,就无法解决这一重要辩论。本研究报告分析了SCC在2013年至2021年间审理的所有宪章案件。与该领域关于利益集团法律动员的主导理论——法院党理论——相反,研究结果显示,应得权益的利益集团,如代表妇女的利益集团,在法庭上的存在是不规则的。相反,政府和法律协会等强大的行为者构成了“重复参与者”干预者的大多数。虽然需要进一步的研究,但研究说明的结论是,如果不维持足够的支助结构,干预可能无法发挥民主化的作用。
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
Who Intervenes in Supreme Court Cases in Canada?
Abstract With the patriation of the Constitution in 1982, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) inherited extraordinary political powers. In response to the Court's expanded power of judicial review, there was a sizeable increase in the number of political actors “intervening” in SCC cases. Scholars of Canadian law and politics are deeply divided on whether civil society participation in the courts—particularly as intervenors—is democratically legitimate. This important debate cannot be settled without an empirical evaluation of who intervenes. This research note provides an analysis of all the Charter cases heard by the SCC between 2013 and 2021. In contrast to the field's dominant theory on interest-group legal mobilization—the Court Party thesis—the findings reveal that equity-deserving interest groups, such as those representing women, have an irregular presence in Court. Instead, powerful actors such as governments and legal associations make up a majority of the “repeat player” intervenors. While further research is warranted, the research note concludes that without the maintenance of sufficient support structures, intervention may be unable to perform a democratizing function.
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
Beyond Rights: The Nisga'a Final Agreement and the Challenges of Modern Treaty Relationships Carole Blackburn, Vancouver: UBC Press, 2021, pp. 184 Categorical Inequalities and Canadian Attitudes toward Positive and Negative Rights Marx on Leisure: An Aristotelian Interpretation Democracy and Exclusion Patti Tamara Lenard, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2023, pp. 232 Toward A (Not The) Political Philosophy Of Populism: Democracy, Moral Dualism And Minimalst Theory In Christopher Lasch
×
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