Skip to Main content Skip to Navigation
Journal articles

Afrontar la objeción contramayoritaria a la justicia constitucionalidad: en defensa de más empirismo

Abstract : The political and philosophical debate regarding the compatibility or the incompatibility between constitutional review and democracy has generated a wide range of argumentations. Nevertheless, most of them presuppose or imply similar elements that prove unsatisfying from a methodological point of view. This article advocates the adoption of a more empiricist perspective than the one traditionally developed in the debate concerning the respective legitimacies of judges and political authorities. Less general idealism and closer examination of our political societies and their concrete practices are necessary. In spite of the strength of the thesis according to which fundamental rights are better taken care of by judges, one has to underline the important ontological and political ambiguities of the very term “right”. Focusing on these ambiguities proves a promising way to elucidate some important features of our contemporary constitutional systems’ “ideology”. Finally, after paying attention to concrete examples, one should realise how much insisting on the specificities and superiority of courts in order to protect fundamental social interests may very well prove self-defeating and counterproductive.
Document type :
Journal articles
Complete list of metadata
Contributor : Spire Sciences Po Institutional Repository Connect in order to contact the contributor
Submitted on : Sunday, October 24, 2021 - 12:58:55 AM
Last modification on : Monday, February 14, 2022 - 4:20:02 PM




Guillaume Tusseau. Afrontar la objeción contramayoritaria a la justicia constitucionalidad: en defensa de más empirismo. Revista de investigación jurídica, 2014, 9, pp.24 - 37. ⟨hal-03399384⟩



Record views