解读政治问题主义:以科索沃为例

IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW Review of Central and East European Law Pub Date : 2021-02-24 DOI:10.1163/15730352-BJA10041
Violeta Beširević
{"title":"解读政治问题主义:以科索沃为例","authors":"Violeta Beširević","doi":"10.1163/15730352-BJA10041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nEver since it was announced in Madison v. Marbury, and articulated in Baker v. Carr, the political question doctrine that tends to exclude ‘mega politics’ from judicial check has been a controversial tool of judicial abstention. Not only that it is not universally applied, but it seems also to be losing significance even in countries of its usual influence due to extensive judicialization of ‘mega politics,’ which implies that there is no claim which the courts will not hear. Based on the judicialization of the Kosovo conflict, this paper shows why the doctrine deserves to be revived and even transplanted in jurisdictions outside its usual reach, particularly in disputes regarding real-life unilateral secession.","PeriodicalId":42845,"journal":{"name":"Review of Central and East European Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Making Sense of the Political Question Doctrine: The Case of Kosovo\",\"authors\":\"Violeta Beširević\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15730352-BJA10041\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nEver since it was announced in Madison v. Marbury, and articulated in Baker v. Carr, the political question doctrine that tends to exclude ‘mega politics’ from judicial check has been a controversial tool of judicial abstention. Not only that it is not universally applied, but it seems also to be losing significance even in countries of its usual influence due to extensive judicialization of ‘mega politics,’ which implies that there is no claim which the courts will not hear. Based on the judicialization of the Kosovo conflict, this paper shows why the doctrine deserves to be revived and even transplanted in jurisdictions outside its usual reach, particularly in disputes regarding real-life unilateral secession.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42845,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of Central and East European Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-02-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of Central and East European Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15730352-BJA10041\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Central and East European Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15730352-BJA10041","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

自从在麦迪逊诉马布里案(Madison v. Marbury)中宣布并在贝克诉卡尔案(Baker v. Carr)中阐明这一原则以来,倾向于将“大政治”排除在司法检查之外的政治问题原则一直是一种有争议的司法弃权工具。它不仅没有被普遍适用,而且由于“大政治”的广泛司法化,它似乎也在失去其通常影响力的国家的重要性,这意味着没有法院不会审理的索赔。本文以科索沃冲突的司法化为基础,说明了为什么该原则值得在其通常范围之外的司法管辖区恢复甚至移植,特别是在现实生活中有关单方面分离的争端中。
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
Making Sense of the Political Question Doctrine: The Case of Kosovo
Ever since it was announced in Madison v. Marbury, and articulated in Baker v. Carr, the political question doctrine that tends to exclude ‘mega politics’ from judicial check has been a controversial tool of judicial abstention. Not only that it is not universally applied, but it seems also to be losing significance even in countries of its usual influence due to extensive judicialization of ‘mega politics,’ which implies that there is no claim which the courts will not hear. Based on the judicialization of the Kosovo conflict, this paper shows why the doctrine deserves to be revived and even transplanted in jurisdictions outside its usual reach, particularly in disputes regarding real-life unilateral secession.
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
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊介绍: Review of Central and East European Law critically examines issues of legal doctrine and practice in the CIS and CEE regions. An important aspect of this is, for example, the harmonization of legal principles and rules; another facet is the legal impact of the intertwining of domestic economies, on the one hand, with regional economies and the processes of international trade and investment on the other. The Review offers a forum for discussion of topical questions of public and private law. The Review encourages comparative research; it is hoped that, in this way, additional insights in legal developments can be communicated to those interested in questions, not only of law, but also of politics, economics, and of society of the CIS and CEE countries.
期刊最新文献
Is Transparency Enough? Informal Governance Networks and the Selection Process of a Georgian Judge to the European Court of Human Rights Validity of Jurisdiction Clauses in Standard Terms and Conditions of International Commercial Contracts under Turkish Law Multiplication of Extraordinary Appeal Measures in Polish Criminal Proceedings: A Guarantee of Justice or Erosion of the Principle of Legal Certainty? Balancing Initial Copyright Ownership in Czech and Slovak Private International Law Accented Universality: Exploring Accountability as a Non-Translatable Concept in Central Asia
×
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