Accessibility navigation


Majorities and courts: a defence of political constitutionalism in liberal democracies

Cannilla Morozovich, A. L. (2019) Majorities and courts: a defence of political constitutionalism in liberal democracies. PhD thesis, University of Reading

[img] Text - Thesis Deposit Form
· Restricted to Repository staff only

1MB

It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing.

To link to this item DOI: 10.48683/1926.00088502

Abstract/Summary

In this thesis I argue that, in liberal democracies, parliaments should enjoy sovereignty in constitutional decision making and I criticize the idea of judicial supremacy; this is the idea that courts should have the power to strike down legislation when they find it violates the basic values and principles of a constitutional order. After an introductory chapter where I explain the relevance and outline of my argument, in chapter two I critically examine three areas of disagreement between defenders and detractors of judicial supremacy: legal indeterminacy, the global judicialization of politics and the empirical question about the effects of courts in the protection of fundamental rights. In chapter three I tum to normative positivism in order to tie majority rule with the democratic authority of law and I also defend the desirability of judicial moral reasoning for the authority of law in liberal democracies. In chapter four I draw a line between imperfect yet full democracies and other political systems and I then use the distinction to support my argument in favour of parliamentary sovereignty in the former contexts. I also expand on what form this majoritarian democracy should take by incorporating agonistic critiques of liberalism into constitutional theory. In chapter five I develop a distinctive account of popular constitutionalism that acknowledges the legal nature of constitutions while defending popular and parliamentary sovereignty and I critically examine the relation between different forms of constitutionalism and the phenomena of populism. I conclude the thesis with a brief summary of my argument against strong judicial review of legislation.

Item Type:Thesis (PhD)
Thesis Supervisor:Kyritsis, D.
Thesis/Report Department:School of Law
Identification Number/DOI:https://doi.org/10.48683/1926.00088502
Divisions:Arts, Humanities and Social Science > School of Law
ID Code:88502

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

Page navigation