匈牙利和斯洛伐克的民主、程序和社会权利以及宪法法院

Q4 Social Sciences
M. Steuer
{"title":"匈牙利和斯洛伐克的民主、程序和社会权利以及宪法法院","authors":"M. Steuer","doi":"10.31078/consrev912","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In democracies, individuals are free to develop their own conceptions of values, and try to persuade others of their viability. However, some of these conceptions carry greater weight than others. In particular, centralized constitutional courts (CCs) authoritatively interpret fundamental values as they are typically entrusted by constitutions to do so. This article introduces a new approach to examine how CCs advance particular value conceptions, via scrutinizing the understandings of procedural rights and social rights by the two formally most powerful in Central Europe: the Hungarian (HCC) and the Slovak (SCC) Constitutional Court. While procedural rights capture the minimum standards of equal treatment, social rights signal more robust readings of democracy which raise expectations of improved well-being. The two jurisdictions offer windows into the working of CCs operating in regimes with a history of authoritarianism—whereas Slovakia is currently a fragile democracy at best, Hungary has regressed into an illiberal regime. The article makes use of new institutionalism, where ideas articulated in the CCs’ case law have a potential to influence the political regimes the CCs are located in. Using a case selection method based on keyword search, its two case studies, covering the period between the 1990s and 2017 and 77 majority opinions show how the SCC seldomly connected procedural and substantive rights to democracy, but this went unnoticed in the broader public. For the HCC, however, the absence of the connections between democracy and justice, especially when interpreting social rights, appears to have contributed to its image as distant from the public, locked in abstract legal discourses. The findings prompt questions about the impact of public perceptions of the CCs on the capacity of actors with authoritarian ambitions to launch successful assaults on the CCs, as well as on the potential of the CCs to prevent these assaults by articulating particular value conceptions.","PeriodicalId":32640,"journal":{"name":"Constitutional Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Democracy, Procedural and Social Rights, and Constitutional Courts in Hungary and Slovakia\",\"authors\":\"M. Steuer\",\"doi\":\"10.31078/consrev912\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In democracies, individuals are free to develop their own conceptions of values, and try to persuade others of their viability. However, some of these conceptions carry greater weight than others. In particular, centralized constitutional courts (CCs) authoritatively interpret fundamental values as they are typically entrusted by constitutions to do so. This article introduces a new approach to examine how CCs advance particular value conceptions, via scrutinizing the understandings of procedural rights and social rights by the two formally most powerful in Central Europe: the Hungarian (HCC) and the Slovak (SCC) Constitutional Court. While procedural rights capture the minimum standards of equal treatment, social rights signal more robust readings of democracy which raise expectations of improved well-being. The two jurisdictions offer windows into the working of CCs operating in regimes with a history of authoritarianism—whereas Slovakia is currently a fragile democracy at best, Hungary has regressed into an illiberal regime. The article makes use of new institutionalism, where ideas articulated in the CCs’ case law have a potential to influence the political regimes the CCs are located in. Using a case selection method based on keyword search, its two case studies, covering the period between the 1990s and 2017 and 77 majority opinions show how the SCC seldomly connected procedural and substantive rights to democracy, but this went unnoticed in the broader public. For the HCC, however, the absence of the connections between democracy and justice, especially when interpreting social rights, appears to have contributed to its image as distant from the public, locked in abstract legal discourses. The findings prompt questions about the impact of public perceptions of the CCs on the capacity of actors with authoritarian ambitions to launch successful assaults on the CCs, as well as on the potential of the CCs to prevent these assaults by articulating particular value conceptions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":32640,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Constitutional Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Constitutional Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev912\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Constitutional Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev912","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在民主国家,个人可以自由地发展自己的价值观,并试图说服他人相信自己的价值观的可行性。然而,其中一些概念比其他概念更有分量。特别是,中央宪法法院(cc)权威性地解释基本价值观,因为它们通常被宪法委托这样做。本文介绍了一种新的方法,通过审查中欧两个形式上最强大的宪法法院:匈牙利宪法法院(HCC)和斯洛伐克宪法法院(SCC)对程序权利和社会权利的理解,来研究cc如何推进特定的价值观念。程序性权利体现了平等待遇的最低标准,而社会权利则体现了对民主的更有力解读,提高了人们对改善福祉的期望。这两个司法管辖区提供了一扇窗口,让我们了解在有威权主义历史的政权中,CCs的运作——斯洛伐克目前充其量是一个脆弱的民主国家,匈牙利则倒退为一个不自由的政权。这篇文章利用了新制度主义,在新制度主义中,CCs判例法中阐述的思想有可能影响CCs所在的政治体制。采用基于关键词搜索的案例选择方法,对20世纪90年代至2017年期间的两个案例进行了研究,并提出了77项多数意见,表明最高法院很少将程序性权利和实质性权利与民主联系起来,但这一点却被广大公众所忽视。然而,对于HCC来说,缺乏民主与正义之间的联系,特别是在解释社会权利时,似乎导致了它远离公众的形象,被困在抽象的法律话语中。这些发现引发了以下问题:公众对CCs的看法对具有专制野心的行动者成功攻击CCs的能力的影响,以及CCs通过阐明特定的价值观念来防止这些攻击的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Democracy, Procedural and Social Rights, and Constitutional Courts in Hungary and Slovakia
In democracies, individuals are free to develop their own conceptions of values, and try to persuade others of their viability. However, some of these conceptions carry greater weight than others. In particular, centralized constitutional courts (CCs) authoritatively interpret fundamental values as they are typically entrusted by constitutions to do so. This article introduces a new approach to examine how CCs advance particular value conceptions, via scrutinizing the understandings of procedural rights and social rights by the two formally most powerful in Central Europe: the Hungarian (HCC) and the Slovak (SCC) Constitutional Court. While procedural rights capture the minimum standards of equal treatment, social rights signal more robust readings of democracy which raise expectations of improved well-being. The two jurisdictions offer windows into the working of CCs operating in regimes with a history of authoritarianism—whereas Slovakia is currently a fragile democracy at best, Hungary has regressed into an illiberal regime. The article makes use of new institutionalism, where ideas articulated in the CCs’ case law have a potential to influence the political regimes the CCs are located in. Using a case selection method based on keyword search, its two case studies, covering the period between the 1990s and 2017 and 77 majority opinions show how the SCC seldomly connected procedural and substantive rights to democracy, but this went unnoticed in the broader public. For the HCC, however, the absence of the connections between democracy and justice, especially when interpreting social rights, appears to have contributed to its image as distant from the public, locked in abstract legal discourses. The findings prompt questions about the impact of public perceptions of the CCs on the capacity of actors with authoritarian ambitions to launch successful assaults on the CCs, as well as on the potential of the CCs to prevent these assaults by articulating particular value conceptions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Constitutional Review
Constitutional Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信