Abstract
This commentary focuses on the relationship between judicial review and democratic resilience, a key challenge within the contemporary “third wave” in Lustig and Weiler’s dialectic dynamic of judicial review. Making use of examples from the Latin American region, I suggest that variations in levels of judicial independence, accountability, and responsibility can help us distinguish between the legitimate use of “voice” and different types of “exit” from the practice of judicial review or even constitutional democracy. The commentary also advances some more general thoughts as to the precise role that courts and judicial review can play in buttressing constitutional democracy in an age of populism and stringent sovereignty claims.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
