View More View Less
  • 1 Hungarian Academy of Sciences
Restricted access

Purchase article

USD  $25.00

1 year subscription (Individual Only)

USD  $576.00

By focusing on the practice of constitutional courts this paper aims to present a qualitative-analytical tool which could contribute to a better (self-)understanding and evaluation of constitutional adjudication. Since the specific nature and the very existence of constitutional review necessitates an a priori reflection on the legitimacy, exact function and role of constitutional courts within the democratic system, a multidimensional model of democracy might give some insight into the theoretical background of the court’s decisions in this respect. This level of analysis focuses simply on the question of which ideal type of democracy might be inherent or envisioned in decisions taken by judges of constitutional courts.

  • Barber, S., Constitutional Failure (University Press of Kansas 2014).

  • Bellamy, R., Political Constitutionalism. A Republican Defense of the Constitutionality of Democracy (CUP 2007).

  • Blokker, P., New Democracies in Crisis? A Comparative Constitutional Study of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia (Routledge 2013).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Buchstein, H. and Jörke, D., ‘Theories of Democracy’ in B Badie (ed), International Encyclopedia of Political Science (SAGE Publications 2011) 572583.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Coppedge, M. et al., ‘A New Way To Measure Democracy’ (2014) 3 Journal of Democracy 159169.

  • Coppedge M. et al., ‘Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: A New Approach’ (2011) 2 Perspective on Politics 247268.

  • Cunningham, F., Theories of Democracy (Routledge 2002).

  • Dworkin, R., ‘Introduction: The Moral Reading and the Majoritarian Premise’ in R Dworkin, Freedom’s Law. The Moral Reading of the American Constitution (OUP 1996) 139.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dyevre, A., ‘Unifying the Field of Comparative Judicial Politics: Towards a General Theory of Judicial Behaviour’ (2010) 2 European Political Science Review 297327.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ely, J. H., Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review (HUP 1980).

  • Gee, J. P., An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. Theory and Method (3rd edn, Routledge 2011).

  • Habermas, J., Between Facts and Norms. Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (MIT Press 1996).

  • Held, D., Models of Democracy (3rd edn, SUP 2006).

  • Hönnige, C., ‘Beyond Judicialization: Why We Need More Comparative Research About Constitutional Courts’ (2010) 3 European Political Science 346358.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kis, J., Alkotmányos demokrácia [Constitutional Democracy] (INDOK 2000).

  • Kramer, L., The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review (OUP 2004).

  • Lijphart, A., Patterns of Democracy (YUP 1999).

  • Luhman, N., Introduction to Systems Theory (1st edn, Polity 2012).

  • March, J. and Olsen, J. P., Rediscovering Institutions. The Organizational Basis of Politics (The Free Press 1989).

  • McCrudden, C., ‘Courts and Consociations, or How Human Rights Courts May De-stabilize Power-Sharing Settlements’ (2013) 2 European Journal of International Law 477501.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • McCrudden, C. and O’Leary, B. (eds), Courts and Consociations: Human Rights versus Power-Sharing (OUP 2013).

  • Mendes, C. H., Constitutional Courts and Deliberative Democracy (OUP 2013).

  • Pócza, K., ‘Alkotmánybíráskodás és demokráciaelmélet’ [Constitutionalism and Theory of Democracy] (2015) 75 Századvég 137181.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Popelier, P., ‘The Belgian Constitutional Court: Guardian of Consensus Democracy or Venue for Deliberation?’ in M Bossuyt et al. (eds), Liberae cogitationes: liber amicorum (Intersentia 2013) 499515.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Puchalska, B., Limits to Democratic Constitutionalism in Central and Eastern Europe (Ashgate 2011).

  • Robertson, D., The Judge as Political Theorist: Contemporary Constitutional Review (Princeton University Press 2010).

  • Sartori, G., ‘Guidelines for Concept Analysis’ in D Collier and J Gerring (eds), Concepts and Methods in Social Science. The Tradition of Giovanni Sartori (Routledge 2009) 97151.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Schiff, G. van der, Judicial Review of Legislation. A Comparative Study of the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and South Africa (Springer 2010).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Schumpeter, J., Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (5th edn, Routledge 1994).

  • Segal, J. and Spaeth, H., The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited (CUP 2002).

  • Sunstein, C., One Case at a Time: Judicial Minimalism on the Supreme Court (Harvard University Press 2001).

  • Tóth, G. A., Túl a szövegen. Értekezés a Magyar alkotmányról [Beyond the Text. A Treatise on the Hungarian Constitution] (Osiris Kiadó 2009).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tully, J., ‘The Imperialism of Modern Constitutional Democracy’ in M Loughlin and N Walker (eds), The Paradox of Constitutionalism (OUP 2007) 315338.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tully, J., ‘The Unfreedom of the Moderns in Comparison to Their Ideals of Constitutional Democracy’ (2002) 2 The Modern Law Journal 204228.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tushnet, M., Taking the Constitution Away from the Courts (PUP 1999).

  • Tushnet, M., Weak Courts, Strong Rights. Judicial Review and Social Welfare Rights in Comparative Constitutional Law (PUP 2008).

  • Vromen, A., ‘Debating Methods: Rediscovering Qualitative Approaches’ in D Marsh and G Stoker (eds), Theory and Methods in Political Science (3rd edn, Plagrave Macmillen 2010) 249267.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Waldron, J., Law and Disagreement (Clarendon Press 1999).

  • Waldron, J., ‘The Core of the Case against Judicial Review’ (2006) 6 The Yale Law Journal 13461406.