Towards understanding constitutional court resilience vis-à-vis autocratization
An institutionalist approach
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1897Keywords:
constitutional courts, democracy, paired comparison, Viségrad FourAbstract
Attitudinal and strategic models prevail in studying the capacities of centralized constitutional courts (CCs) to withstand autocratization. Yet, these models rarely scrutinize CCs’ interpretations of political concepts. This article aims to remedy the gap via an institutionalist approach to the significance of conceptualizations of democracy by CCs. It invokes a maximalist reading of democracy to accommodate a wide range of conceptions, is diachronic, squarable with comparative case studies and sensitive to political regime types, using an ideal-typical distinction between semi-authoritarian, illiberal and democratic regimes. The article illustrates the potential of this approach by presenting a dataset on CCs in Hungary and Slovakia. Both regimes have formally powerful CCs with a non-democratic experience. Yet, they seem to have taken a different trajectory since 2010. The article suggests that analysing these two CCs’ conceptions of democracy can advance our understanding of their role in preventing (or failing to prevent) autocratization in Hungary and Slovakia.
Downloads
Metrics
Downloads:
First_Online_Steuer_OSLS 19
References
Arendt, H., 2016. Freedom and Politics. In: D. Miller, ed., The Liberty Reader. London: Routledge, 58–79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315091822-4
Bartolini, S., 2018. The Political. London: Rowman & Littlefield.
Bassok, O., 2017. The Arendtian Dread: Courts with Power. Ratio Juris [online], 30(4), 417–32. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/raju.12186 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/raju.12186
Baviskar, S., and Malone, M.F.T., 2004. What Democracy Means to Citizens – and Why It Matters. Revista Europea de Estudios Latinoamericanos y del Caribe [online], no. 76 (April): 3–23. Available at: https://erlacs.org/articles/10.18352/erlacs.9682 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18352/erlacs.9682
Beach, D., and Pedersen, R.B., 2013. Process-Tracing Methods: Foundations and Guidelines. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.2556282
Beardsley, P.L., 1974. Political Science: The Case of the Missing Paradigm. Political Theory [online], 2(1), 46–61. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/190699 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/009059177400200103
Bencze, M., 2023. “Law Is Not Politics”: The Role of the Liberal View on Law in the Rise of “New Populism”. In: R. Mańko et al., eds., Law, Populism, and the Political in Central and Eastern Europe. London: Birkbeck Law Press, 166–83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781032624464-8
Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2014a. BTI 2014 Country Report: Hungary [online]. Available at: https://bti-project.org/fileadmin/api/content/en/downloads/reports/country_report_2014_HUN.pdf
Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2014b. BTI 2014 Country Report: Slovakia [online]. Available at: https://bti-project.org/fileadmin/api/content/en/downloads/reports/country_report_2014_SVK.pdf
Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2018a. BTI 2018 Country Report: Hungary [online]. Available at: https://bti-project.org/fileadmin/api/content/en/downloads/reports/country_report_2018_HUN.pdf
Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2018b. BTI 2018 Country Report: Slovakia [online]. Available at: https://bti-project.org/fileadmin/api/content/en/downloads/reports/country_report_2018_SVK.pdf
Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2024. Index (2003–2024) [online]. Available at: https://www.bti-project.org/en/index/
Besson, S., 2011. Human Rights and Democracy in a Global Context: Decoupling and Recoupling. Ethics & Global Politics [online], 4(1), 19–50. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3402/egp.v4i1.6348 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3402/egp.v4i1.6348
Biagi, F., 2019. European Constitutional Courts and Transitions to Democracy. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108776783
Braumoeller, B.F., and Goertz, G., 2000. The Methodology of Necessary Conditions. American Journal of Political Science [online], 44(4), 844–58. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/2669285 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2669285
Bricker, B., 2015. Visions of Judicial Review: A Comparative Examination of Courts and Policy in Democracies. Colchester: ECPR Press.
Bugarič, B., 2019. Central Europe’s Descent into Autocracy: A Constitutional Analysis of Authoritarian Populism. International Journal of Constitutional Law [online], 17(2), 597–616. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moz032 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moz032
Bühlmann, M., et al., 2012. The Democracy Barometer: A New Instrument to Measure the Quality of Democracy and Its Potential for Comparative Research. European Political Science [online], 11(4), 519–36. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2011.46 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2011.46
Cappelen, H., 2023. The Concept of Democracy: An Essay on Conceptual Amelioration and Abandonment. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198886518.001.0001
Cappelletti, M., 1971. Judicial Review in the Contemporary World. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Chernilo, D., 2023. On the Relationships between Critical Theory and Secularisation: The Challenges of Democratic Fallibility and Planetary Survival. European Journal of Social Theory [online], 26(2), 282–300. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/13684310221135500 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/13684310221135500
Clayton, C.W., and May, D.A., 1999. A Political Regimes Approach to the Analysis of Legal Decisions. Polity [online], 32(2), 233–52. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/3235284 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3235284
Collier, D., 2011. Understanding Process Tracing. PS: Political Science & Politics [online], 44(04), 823–30. Available at: https://polisci.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/people/u3827/Understanding%20Process%20Tracing.pdf DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096511001429
Franklin, D., ed., 1993. Constitution Watch. East European Constitutional Review, 2(1), 2–12.
Constitutional Court of Hungary, 2019. Ügyforgalmi és statisztikai adatok [online]. Available at: https://alkotmanybirosag.hu/ugyforgalmi-es-statisztikai-adatok/
Cover, R.M., 1986. Violence and the Word. The Yale Law Journal [online], 95(8), 1601–29. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/796468 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/796468
Crick, B., 2003. Democracy: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780192802507.001.0001
Daly, T.G., 2017. The Alchemists: Questioning Our Faith in Courts as Democracy-Builders. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108283731
Della Porta, D., 2008. Comparative Analysis: Case-Oriented versus Variable-Oriented Research. In: D. Della Porta and M. Keating, eds., Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective. Cambridge University Press, 196–222. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801938.012
Dixon, R., 2021. Strong Courts: Judicial Statecraft in Aid of Constitutional Change. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 59(2), 299–363.
Dixon, R., and Issacharoff, S., 2016. Living to Fight Another Day: Judicial Deferral in Defense of Democracy. Wisconsin Law Review, 2016(4), 683–731. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2726045
Drisko, J.W., and Maschi, T., 2015. Content Analysis. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190215491.001.0001
Dworkin, R., 2011. Justice for Hedgehogs. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674059337
Elo, S., et al., 2014. Qualitative Content Analysis: A Focus on Trustworthiness. SAGE Open [online], 4(1), 2158244014522633. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014522633 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014522633
Foa, R.S., and Mounk, Y., 2017. The Signs of Deconsolidation. Journal of Democracy [online], 28(1), 5–15. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2017.0000 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2017.0000
Gagnon, J.P., 2018. 2,234 Descriptions of Democracy: An Update to Democracy’s Ontological Pluralism. Democratic Theory [online], 5(1), 92–113. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3167/dt.2018.050107 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3167/dt.2018.050107
Gárdos-Orosz, F., and Szente, Z., eds., 2014. Alkotmányozás és Alkotmányjogi változások Európában és Magyarországon. Budapest: Nemzeti Közszolgálati Egyetem.
George, A.L., and Bennett, A., 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gillman, H., 1999. The Court as an Idea, Not a Building Block (or a Game): Interpretive Institutionalism and the Analysis of Supreme Court Decision-Making. In: C.W. Clayton and H. Gillman, eds., Supreme Court Decision-Making: New Institutionalist Approaches. University of Chicago Press, 65–87.
Ginsburg, T., 2010. The Global Spread of Constitutional Review. In: K.E. Whittington, D. Kelemen and G.A. Caldeira, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Law and Politics. Oxford University Press, 81–98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199208425.003.0006
Gisselquist, R.M., 2014. Paired Comparison and Theory Development: Considerations for Case Selection. PS: Political Science & Politics [online], 47(2), 477–84. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096514000419 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096514000419
Granat, M., 2022. On the Experiences of a Constitutional Court in an Illiberal Democracy: Incapacitated but Necessary. In: J.M. Castellà Andrey and M.A. Simonelli, eds., Populism and Contemporary Democracy in Europe: Old Problems and New Challenges [online]. Cham: Springer International, 137–56. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92884-1_7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92884-1_7
Granat, M., 2023. Turbulent Times in the Constitutionalism of Central and Eastern European Countries. In: M. Granat, ed., Constitutionality of Law without a Constitutional Court. London: Routledge, 1–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003355793-1
Graver, H.P., 2018. Judicial Independence Under Authoritarian Rule: An Institutional Approach to the Legal Tradition of the West. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law [online], 10(2), 317–39. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-018-0071-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-018-0071-8
Graver, H.P., and Čuroš, P., 2021. Judges Under Stress: Understanding Continuity and Discontinuity of Judicial Institutions of the CEE Countries. German Law Journal [online], 22(7), 1147–58. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2021.73 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2021.73
Greskovits, B., 2015. The Hollowing and Backsliding of Democracy in East Central Europe. Global Policy [online], 6(S1), 28–37. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12225 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12225
Halmai, G., 2010. The Hungarian Approach to Constitutional Review: The End of Activism? The First Decade of the Hungarian Constitutional Court. In: W. Sadurski, ed., Constitutional Justice, East and West: Democratic Legitimacy and Constitutional Courts in Post-Communist Europe in a Comparative Perspective. The Hague/London: Springer, 189–212.
Halmai, G., 2023. The Evolution and Gestalt of the Hungarian Constitution. In: A. von Bogdandy, P. Huber and S. Ragone, eds., The Max Planck Handbooks in European Public Law: Volume II: Constitutional Foundations. Oxford University Press, 217–68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198726425.003.0005
Hanley, S., and Vachudova, M.A., 2018. Understanding the Illiberal Turn: Democratic Backsliding in the Czech Republic. East European Politics [online], 34(3), 276–96. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/21599165.2018.1493457 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21599165.2018.1493457
Hay, C., 2008. Political Ontology. In: R.E. Goodin and C. Tilly, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis. Oxford University Press, 78–96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199270439.003.0004
Holmes, O.W., 1997. The Path of the Law. Harvard Law Review [online], 110(5), 991–1009. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/1342108 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1342108
Holmes, S., 2021. The Antiliberal Idea. In: A. Sajó, R. Uitz and S. Holmes, eds., Routledge Handbook of Illiberalism. London: Routledge, 1–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367260569-2
Hsieh, H.F., and Shannon, S.E., 2005. Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qualitative Health Research [online], 15(9), 1277–88. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
Jakab, A., 2021. How to Return from a Hybrid Regime to Constitutionalism in Hungary. Verfassungsblog [online], 11 December. Available at: https://verfassungsblog.de/how-to-return-from-a-hybrid-regime-to-constitutionalism-in-hungary/
Jakab, A., Dyevre, A., and Itzcovich, G., 2017. Conclusion. In: A. Jakab, A. Dyevre and G. Itzcovich, eds., Comparative Constitutional Reasoning [online]. Cambridge University Press, 761–97. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316084281.022 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316084281.022
Jenne, E.K., and Mudde, C., 2012. Can Outsiders Help? Journal of Democracy [online], 23(3), 147–55. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2012.0057 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2012.0057
Keane, J., 2022. The Shortest History of Democracy: 4,000 Years of Self-Government. New York: The Experiment.
Keck, T.M., 2014. Judicial Politics in Polarized Times. University of Chicago Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226182551.001.0001
Kelemen, K., 2024. Dissents and Other Separate Opinions. In: L. Epstein et al., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Judicial Behaviour [online]. Oxford University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780192898579.001.0001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780192898579.013.27
Kennedy, D., 1997. A Critique of Adjudication: Fin de Siècle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
King, J., 2012. Judging Social Rights. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139051750
Kneip, S., 2011. Constitutional Courts as Democratic Actors and Promoters of the Rule of Law: Institutional Prerequisites and Normative Foundations. Zeitschrift Für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft [online], 5(1), 131–55. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12286-011-0096-z DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12286-011-0096-z
Kosař, D., and Vyhnánek, L., 2020. The Constitutional Court of Czechia. In: A. von Bogdandy, P. Huber and C. Grabenwarter, eds., The Max Planck Handbooks in European Public Law: Volume III: Constitutional Adjudication: Institutions. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198726418.003.0004
Krygier, M., 2019. The Challenge of Institutionalisation: Post-Communist “Transitions”, Populism, and the Rule of Law. European Constitutional Law Review [online], 15(3), 544–73. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019619000294 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019619000294
Kühn, Z., 2017. The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic. In: A. Jakab, A. Dyevre and G. Itzcovich, eds., Comparative Constitutional Reasoning. Cambridge University Press, 199–236. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316084281.008
Láštic, E., and Steuer, M., 2018. The Slovak Constitutional Court: The Third Legislator? In: K. Pócza, ed., Constitutional Politics and the Judiciary: Decision-Making in Central and Eastern Europe. London: Routledge, 184–213. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429467097-8
Leiter, B., 2001. Legal Realism and Legal Positivism Reconsidered. Ethics [online], 111(2), 278–301. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1086/233474 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/233474
Lührmann, A., and Lindberg, S.I., 2019. A Third Wave of Autocratization Is Here: What Is New about It? Democratization [online], 26(7), 1095–1113. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2019.1582029 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2019.1582029
Malová, D., 2010. The Role and Experience of the Slovakian Constitutional Court. In: W. Sadurski, ed., Constitutional Justice, East and West: Democratic Legitimacy and Constitutional Courts in Post-Communist Europe in a Comparative Perspective. The Hague/London: Springer, 349–72.
Malová, D., and Rybář, M., 2000. The Troubled Institutionalization of Parliamentary Democracy in Slovakia. Politička Misao [online], no. 05: 99–115. Available at: https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/42352
Mańko, R., 2023. On Law, Ideology and Violence: A Reply to Maciej Pichlak. Krytyka Prawa, 15(1), 326–38. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7206/kp.2080-1084.585. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7206/kp.2080-1084.585
March, J.G., and Olsen, J.P., 1983. The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life. American Political Science Review [online], 78(03), 734–49. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/1961840 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1961840
Mark, A., 2023. Perceptions of Administrative Policymaking Authority: Evidence from Interviews in Three State Court Systems. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online], 13(S1), S171–98. Available at: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1706 DOI: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1706
McTavish, D.G., and Pirro, E.B., 1990. Contextual Content Analysis. Quality and Quantity [online], 24(3), 245–65. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00139259 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00139259
Merkel, W., 2014. Is There a Crisis of Democracy? Democratic Theory [online], 1(2), 11–25. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3167/dt.2014.010202 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3167/dt.2014.010202
Nir, E., 2018. Approaching the Bench: Accessing Elites on the Judiciary for Qualitative Interviews. International Journal of Social Research Methodology [online], 21(1), 77–89. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2017.1324669 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2017.1324669
Olsen, J.P., 2017. Democratic Accountability and the Terms of Political Order. European Political Science Review [online], 9(4), 519–37. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773916000084 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773916000084
Orren, K., and Skowronek, S., 2004. The Search for American Political Development. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511756269
Osterberg-Kaufmann, N., Stark, T., and Mohamad-Klotzbach, C., 2020. Challenges in Conceptualizing and Measuring Meanings and Understandings of Democracy. Zeitschrift Für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft [online], 14(4), 299–320. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12286-020-00470-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12286-020-00470-5
Pickering, M.J., 2004. Qualitative Content Analysis. In: M.S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman and T.F. Liao, eds., The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods [online]. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 889–90. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412950589 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412950589
Pierson, P., 2011. Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton University Press.
Pócza, K., and Dobos, G., 2018. Research Methodology. In: K. Pócza, ed., Constitutional Politics and the Judiciary: Decision-Making in Central and Eastern Europe. London: Routledge, 8–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429467097-2
Pritchett, C.H., 1968. Public Law and Judicial Behavior. The Journal of Politics [online], 30(2), 480–509. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/2128450 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2128450
Robertson, D., 2010. The Judge as Political Theorist: Contemporary Constitutional Review. Princeton University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400836871
Rosenberg, G.N., 1991. The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? University of Chicago Press.
Rothstein, B., 1998. Political Institutions: An Overview. In: R.E. Goodin and H.D. Klingemann, eds., A New Handbook of Political Science. Oxford University Press, 133–66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/0198294719.003.0004
Roznai, Y., 2020. Who Will Save the Redheads? Towards an Anti-Bully Theory of Judicial Review and Protection of Democracy. William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal [online], 29(2), 1–33. Available at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol29/iss2/3/
Rueschemeyer, D., 2008. Why and How Ideas Matter. In: R.E. Goodin and C. Tilly, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis. Oxford University Press, 227–51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199270439.003.0012
Sajó, A., 2021. Ruling by Cheating: Governance in Illiberal Democracy [online]. Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108952996 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108952996
Sartori, G., 1969. Politics, Ideology, and Belief Systems. American Political Science Review [online], 63(2), 398–411. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/1954696 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1954696
Sartori, G., 1987. The Theory of Democracy Revisited: Part One: The Contemporary Debate, Vol. 1. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Scheppele, K.L., 1988. Legal Secrets: Equality and Efficiency in the Common Law. University of Chicago Press.
Scheppele, K.L., 2015. Understanding Hungary’s Constitutional Revolution. In: A. von Bogdandy and P. Sonnevend, eds., Constitutional Crisis in the European Constitutional Area: Theory, Law and Politics in Hungary and Romania. Munich/Oxford: C.H. Beck/Hart/Nomos, 111–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474202176.ch-003
Schreier, M., 2012. Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice. Los Angeles: Sage. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529682571
Schwartz, H., 1998. Eastern Europe’s Constitutional Courts. Journal of Democracy [online], 9(4), 100–114. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1998.0070 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1998.0070
Schwartz, H., 2002. The Struggle for Constitutional Justice in Post-Communist Europe. University of Chicago Press.
Segal, J.A., and Spaeth, H.J., 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615696
Shapiro, I., 1999. Democratic Justice. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Smith, R.M., 1988. Political Jurisprudence, The “New Institutionalism,” and the Future of Public Law. The American Political Science Review [online], 82(1), 89–108. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/1958060 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1958060
Smithey, S.I., and Ishiyama, J., 2002. Judicial Activism in Post-Communist Politics. Law & Society Review [online], 36(4), 719–42. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/1512169 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1512169
Sólyom, L., 2003. The Role of Constitutional Courts in the Transition to Democracy With Special Reference to Hungary. International Sociology [online], 18(1), 133–61. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580903018001008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580903018001008
Sólyom, L., 2015. Rise and Decline of Constitutional Culture in Hungary. In: A. von Bogdandy and P. Sonnevend, eds., Constitutional Crisis in the European Constitutional Area: Theory, Law and Politics in Hungary and Romania. Munich/Oxford: C.H. Beck/Hart/Nomos, 5–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474202176.ch-001
Staton, J.K., Reenock, C., and Holsinger, J., 2022. Can Courts Be Bulwarks of Democracy? Judges and the Politics of Prudence. Comparative Constitutional Law and Policy [online]. Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009030939 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009030939
Steuer, M., 2022. Authoritarian Populism, Conceptions of Democracy, and the Hungarian Constitutional Court: The Case of Political Participation. The International Journal of Human Rights [online], 26(7), 1207–29. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2021.1968379 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2021.1968379
Steuer, M., 2023. Democracy, Procedural and Social Rights, and Constitutional Courts in Hungary and Slovakia. Constitutional Review [online], 9(1), 28–76. Available at: https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev912 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev912
Steuer, M., 2024. Judicial Self-Perceptions and the Separation of Powers in Varied Political Regime Contexts: The Constitutional Courts in Hungary and Slovakia. European Politics and Society [online], 25(3), 537–55. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/23745118.2023.2244390 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23745118.2023.2244390
Stone Sweet, A., 2000. Governing with Judges: Constitutional Politics in Europe [online]. Oxford University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/0198297718.001.0001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/0198297718.001.0001
Sulikowski, A., and Mańko, R., 2023. Conclusions: Post-Communism, Neoliberalism, and Populism in the Semi-Periphery. In: R. Mańko et al., eds., Law, Populism, and the Political in Central and Eastern Europe. London: Birkbeck Law Press, 248–59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781032624464-12
Tarrow, S., 2010. The Strategy of Paired Comparison: Toward a Theory of Practice. Comparative Political Studies [online], 43(2), 230–59. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414009350044 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414009350044
Trampusch, C., and Palier, B., 2016. Between X and Y: How Process Tracing Contributes to Opening the Black Box of Causality. New Political Economy [online], 21(5), 437–54. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2015.1134465 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2015.1134465
Urbinati, N., 2019. Me the People, How Populism Transforms Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674243576
Vanberg, G., 1998. Abstract Judicial Review, Legislative Bargaining, and Policy Compromise. Journal of Theoretical Politics [online], 10(3), 299–326. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0951692898010003005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0951692898010003005
Vanberg, G., 2015. Constitutional Courts in Comparative Perspective: A Theoretical Assessment. Annual Review of Political Science [online], 18(1), 167–85. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-040113-161150 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-040113-161150
Verdugo, S., 2021. How Judges Can Challenge Dictators and Get Away with It: Advancing Democracy While Preserving Judicial Independence. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law [online], 59(3), 554–607. Available at: https://www.jtl.columbia.edu/volume-59/how-judges-can-challenge-dictators-and-get-away-with-it-advancing-democracy-while-preserving-judicial-independence DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3660179
Visser, M., 2022. Promoting Constitutional Literacy: What Role for Courts? German Law Journal [online], 23(8), 1121–38. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2022.73 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2022.73
Waldron, J., 2021. The Rule of Law as an Essentially Contested Concept. In: J. Meierhenrich and M. Loughlin, eds., The Cambridge Companion to the Rule of Law. Cambridge University Press, 121–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108600569.007
Waller, J.G., 2024. Distinctions With a Difference: Illiberalism and Authoritarianism in Scholarly Study. Political Studies Review [online], 22(2), 365–86. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299231159253 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299231159253
Whittington, K.E., 2014. Law and the Courts. In: R. Valelly, S. Mettler and R. Lieberman, eds., The Oxford Handbook of American Political Development [online]. Oxford University Press, 309–26. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199697915.013.29 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199697915.013.29
Zhai, Y., 2019. Popular Conceptions of Democracy and Democratic Satisfaction in China. International Political Science Review [online], 40(2), 246–62. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512118757128 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512118757128
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Max Steuer
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
OSLS strictly respects intellectual property rights and it is our policy that the author retains copyright, and articles are made available under a Creative Commons licence. The Creative Commons Non-Commercial Attribution No-Derivatives licence is our default licence, further details available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 If this is not acceptable to you, please contact us.
The non-exclusive permission you grant to us includes the rights to disseminate the bibliographic details of the article, including the abstract supplied by you, and to authorise others, including bibliographic databases, indexing and contents alerting services, to copy and communicate these details.
For information on how to share and store your own article at each stage of production from submission to final publication, please read our Self-Archiving and Sharing policy.
The Copyright Notice showing the author and co-authors, and the Creative Commons license will be displayed on the article, and you must agree to this as part of the submission process. Please ensure that all co-authors are properly attributed and that they understand and accept these terms.
