IGLESIAS VILA, MARISA. Human Rights Courts without Shortcuts to Democracy? Contestation, Conversation and Judicial Review. []. , spe55, pp.171-190.   09--2023. ISSN 0122-9893.  https://doi.org/10.18601/01229893.n55.10.

In this work I critically assess some of the arguments Cristina Lafont offers when she claims that judicial review contributes to democratic self-government. I argue that her alternative for a democracy without shortcuts is too optimistic in at least two aspects: 1) in the connection she establishes between the right to legal contestation, judicial review, and citizen self-government, and 2) in her claim to assign a communicative function to judicial review without having to opt for a weak or strong form of constitutionalism. I argue in the first place that the right to legal contestation in the constitutional sphere is neither usually a channel as open to the citizen as Lafont presupposes nor, in contexts of strong pluralism and socio-cultural domination, is it enough to make the protection of minority rights compatible with a democratic self-government where all citizens can see themselves as authors of the laws that apply to them. I also doubt that judicial review is usually a channel that ensures the constitutionalization of political debate and the communicative empowerment of citizens, especially when we are thinking of the communicative effects for the rights reasons. Finally, I suggest that, even when accepting shortcuts to democracy may be unavoidable, democratic self-governance is not the only thing that matters in a legitimate organization of a political community over time. For this reason, departing from a systemic idea of legitimacy, I advocate a form of cooperative constitutionalism without final words in which judicial review, especially at the level of international human rights courts, rather than acting as an initiator, has the role of channeling an ongoing conversation about our rights and freedoms.

: Judicial review; systemic legitimacy; institutional cooperation; international human rights courts; incremental logic.

        · |     · |     · ( pdf )