Striking the balance of powers: the spanish constitutional court and the battle for public support
Year: 2019
Type: dissertation
Abstract: By examining the framing that political actors made of the upcoming landmark LOAPA, Rumasa and abortion decisions issued by the Spanish Constitutional Court between 1980 and 1983, its influence on public debate and the final rulings, this thesis analyses the impact of external pressure on a new constitutional court using a process-tracing methodology. The research question addressed is whether strategic considerations, and more specifically, the preservation and enhancement of the Court's legitimacy had a significant influence on the three decisions. It is hypothesised that politicians successfully constrained the Court's choices by threatening its capital of public support. The thesis argues that both the risk of having its legitimacy eroded and the wider political consequences of the rulings had a decisive influence on the decisions taken by the Court. The results support theories positing that when adjudicating in salient cases, strategic concerns have a significant influence in constitutional courts decisions. It further sheds light on the challenges new constitutional courts face when in the process of building their legitimacy and trying to establish themselves as respected arbiters.
Author: Fernando Gil-Porquet
Language: English
Subfield: Law
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W3007275803