Courts and Crisis Regimes

A Theory Sketch with Asian Case Studies

Bibliographic Data

ID6340202
AuthorsC Neal Tate (University of North Texas, corresponding author)
Year1993
Volume46
Issue2
Pages311
Publication date1993-06-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenuePolitical Research Quarterly (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1065-9129 • E-ISSN: 1938-274X
PublisherJSTOR (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.2307/448890
OpenAlexW4248356719
LanguageEN
Citations received25
References cited20

A set of concepts for the comparison of the institutional roles of judiciaries is used to sketch a preliminary theory of the interactions of courts and crisis regimes. Case studies of the Philippines, India, and Pakistan supreme courts in the 1970s explore how their crisis regimes responded to the independence, impartiality, scope, and depths of their supreme courts' decision making and how those courts were or were not able to maintain their performance of other functions and their institutional positions relative to the crisis rulers. The case studies suggest that the most usual relations between courts and crisis regimes involve efforts to restrict the scope and depth, in preference to the independence and impartiality of the courts' decision making. In addition, the judiciary backs down when faced with opportunities to assert its authority by challenging the legitimacy of the crisis regime and exerting its regime limiter/citizen rights protector function

Economics · Function (biology · Impartiality · Independence (probability theory · Judicial Independence · Law and economics · Legitimacy · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Positive economics · Preference · Scope (computer science · Sketch · Sociology · Supreme court · Commonwealth, Australian Politics and Federalism · Computer Science · Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction · International Law and Aviation · International Maritime Law Issues · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Law · Legal Education and Practice Innovations

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub