Courts and New Democracies: Recent Works

Recent literature on comparative judicial politics reveals a variety of roles that courts adopt in the process of democratization. These include, very rarely, serving as a trigger for democratization and, more commonly, serving as downstream guarantor for departing autocrats or as downstream consolidator of democracy. In light of these roles, this article reviews six relatively recent books: Courts in Latin America, edited by Helmke and Rios‐Figueroa (2011 ); Judges Beyond Politics in Democracy and Dictatorship: Lessons from Chile, by Hilbink (2007 ); Cultures of Legality: Judicialization and Political Activism in Latin America, edited by Couso, Huneeus, and Sieder (2011 ); The Legacies of Law: Long‐Run Consequences of Legal Development in South Africa, 1652–2000, by Meierhenrich (2008 ); Judging Russia: Constitutional Court in Russian Politics 1990–2006, by Trochev (2008 ); and New Courts in Asia, edited by Harding and Nicholson (2010 ).     

Advance directives as an instrument in an ageing Europe

Advance directives are written or oral statements that are intended to govern healthcare decision-making for their authors, for both positive and negative decisions, should they lose decisional capacity in the future. In a Europe which is facing an ageing population, advance directives play an increasing role to (help) formulate the wishes from elderly patient once they start losing the capacity to decide independently. Advance directives should not only be used as a formulation of the patients' previously made decision, but can also be used as guidelines to better understand the previous expressed wishes of the patient. If the advance directive is formulated in too vague form, the healthcare proxy and/or the healthcare trustee can help the physician interpret the directive. This broader approach towards advance directives is reflected in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, as well as on the European legislative level.     

Toward an effective international legal order: from coexistence to concert?

In forbidding the use of force except in self‐defence against armed attack or when authorised by the Security Council, the UN Charter appears to be the culminating development of a system of international order based on the doctrine of state sovereignty. The cumulative result of international‐law‐related acts, omissions and declarations of the Bush administration since its inception can be construed as a fundamental challenge to the sovereign state system. The administration's stated security strategy is one possible response to undoubtedly grave challenges to national and human security. In fact, only an institutionalised partnership between the US and regional powers such as China, India, Brazil and Germany can hope to address those challenges successfully, in part because only it would have the requisite legitimacy. That partnership or concert could be organised within the UN framework, albeit intensifying its hierarchical elements.