Doctoral Dissertation Research: Assessing Judicial Power in Political Transitions

博士论文研究：评估政治转型中的司法权

• 批准号: 1424176
• 负责人: Nicolas Van de Walle
• 金额: $ 1.76万
• 依托单位: Cornell University
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 项目类别: Standard Grant
• 财政年份: 2014
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 2014-08-01 至 2015-07-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1424176&HistoricalAwards=false
• 关键词: Doctoral; Dissertation; Research; Assessing; Judicial

The transitions that began in 2011 in Egypt and Tunisia have had nearly opposite effects on the status of courts in the two countries. Egypt's troubled transition has seen the country's courts, especially the Supreme Constitutional Court (SCC), rise to new levels of prominence. In contrast, the Tunisian transitional regime - considered the most stable of the Arab Spring - suspended the Constitutional Council for the duration of the transition. The status of the courts has important implications for the distribution of power within the transitional regime. In Egypt, power was divided between the SCC and several elected legislative, executive and constituent institutions. In Tunisia, power was concentrated in a single legislative-constituent Assembly unchecked by judicial review. The focus of this study is on the origins of judicial power, but it will also touch on the problem of democratization. The Egyptian and Tunisian cases are a challenge to the view that strong courts and democratization always go hand in hand. The greater power of the Egyptian judiciary did not prevent the Egyptian transition from collapsing in the July 3 coup, and the absence of constitutional review in Tunisia did not result in a dictatorship of the National Assembly. The rule of law upheld by an independent judiciary is an essential part of any consolidated democracy. Nevertheless, prior research has not adequately addressed the question of how the judiciary aids the democratic process or which forms of judicial power are conducive to democratization in the context of democratic transitions. This project assesses three alternative hypotheses to explain the divergent outcomes in Egypt and Tunisia. These hypotheses address the role of majoritarian and counter-majoritarian institutions and interests in each country; the different institutional structures of the constitutional court, which may create different opportunities for interaction between civil society and the courts; and the different relationships between the constitutional court and the ordinary judiciary. Archival work and interviews in Egypt and Tunisia will assess these explanations.

埃及和突尼斯2011年开始的过渡对两国法院的地位产生了几乎相反的影响。 埃及的麻烦过渡已经看到该国的法院，特别是最高宪法法院（SCC），上升到新的突出水平。 相比之下，突尼斯过渡政权-被认为是阿拉伯之春中最稳定的政权-在过渡期间暂停了宪法理事会。 法院的地位对过渡政权内的权力分配具有重要影响。 在埃及，权力在SCC和几个选举产生的立法，行政和制宪机构之间分配。 在突尼斯，权力集中在一个单一的立法制宪议会，不受司法审查的制约。 本研究的重点是司法权的起源，但它也将触及民主化的问题。 埃及和突尼斯的案例对强有力的法院和民主化总是齐头并进的观点提出了挑战。 埃及司法部门的更大权力并没有阻止埃及过渡在7月3日政变中崩溃，突尼斯没有进行宪法审查也没有导致国民议会的独裁。 由独立司法机构维护的法治是任何巩固民主的重要组成部分。 然而，先前的研究没有充分探讨司法机构如何协助民主进程或何种形式的司法权力有利于民主过渡背景下的民主化。该项目评估了三种替代假设，以解释埃及和突尼斯的不同结果。 这些假设涉及每个国家的多数和反多数机构和利益的作用;宪法法院的不同体制结构，这可能为民间社会和法院之间的互动创造不同的机会;以及宪法法院和普通司法机构之间的不同关系。在埃及和突尼斯的档案工作和采访将评估这些解释。