Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRestrepo A.F.M
dc.contributor.authorGiraldo L.D.P.
dc.date.accessioned2023-10-24T19:23:56Z
dc.date.available2023-10-24T19:23:56Z
dc.date.created2023
dc.identifier.issn7180195
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11407/7893
dc.description.abstractCollegial decisions are exposed to peculiarities that individual judges do not face, such as deliberations, leading judges as case managers, group thinking, and peer effects, among others. Nevertheless, when analyzing judicial outcomes of Constitutional Courts, most of the legal community in South America does not consider those features. In this paper, we describe some of them and focus on dissents as a variable that provides fertile ground for assessing the reasoning of the tribunals. The scope of the work is limited to a descriptive and normative sphere, and uses a qualitative methodology.3. © 2023, Universidad de Talca. All rights reserved.eng
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherUniversidad de Talca
dc.relation.isversionofhttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85168141336&doi=10.4067%2fS0718-52002023000100142&partnerID=40&md5=8f838fd362b458f1f42d599c32f115a4
dc.sourceEstud. Const.
dc.sourceEstudios Constitucionaleseng
dc.subjectAudienceseng
dc.subjectDissent aversioneng
dc.subjectDissenting opinionseng
dc.subjectGroup-thinkingeng
dc.subjectPanel effecteng
dc.titleCollective choice and dissenting opinions in Multimember Courts. Elements for Assessing Judicial reasoning in Courts of Constitutional decision making in South America [Decisión colectiva y opiniones disidentes en Tribunales Colegiados. Elementos para evaluar el razonamiento judicial de los Tribunales de decisión Constitucional en Suramérica]eng
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.accessrightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
dc.publisher.programDerechospa
dc.type.spaArtículo
dc.identifier.doi10.4067/S0718-52002023000100142
dc.relation.citationvolume21
dc.relation.citationissue1
dc.relation.citationstartpage142
dc.relation.citationendpage168
dc.publisher.facultyFacultad de Derechospa
dc.affiliationRestrepo, A.F.M., Universidad Libre Seccional Pereira, Universidad de Málaga, Spain
dc.affiliationGiraldo, L.D.P., Universidad de Medellín, Colombia, Derecho Procesal, Derecho Procesal y Doctora en Derecho, Universidad Nacional de Rosario, Argentina
dc.relation.referencesAlder, John, Dissents in Courts of Last Resort (2000) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 20 (2), pp. 221-246
dc.relation.referencesArrow, Kenneth J., (2012) Social Choice and Individual Values, , (New Haven, Yale University Press)
dc.relation.referencesAusten-Smith, David, Banks, Jeffrey S., Information Aggregation, Rationality, and the Condorcet Jury Theorem (1996) The American Political Science Review, 90 (1), pp. 34-45
dc.relation.referencesBaum, Lawrence, (2006) Judges and their Audiences – A Perspective on Judicial Behavior, , (Prin-ceton, Princeton University Press)
dc.relation.referencesBerra, Elisabeth, La acción meramente declarativa (2010) Revista Jurídica, (14), pp. 90-101
dc.relation.referencesBickel, Alexander M., (1986) The Least Dangerous Branch. The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics, , (New Haven, Yale University Press)
dc.relation.referencesBlack, Henry Campbell, (2018) Handbook on The Law of Judicial Precedents, Or The Science Of Case Law, , (Forgotten Books, London)
dc.relation.referencesBonneau, Chris W., Hammond, Thomas H., Maltzman, Forrest, Wahlbeck, Paul J., Agenda Control, the Median Justice, and the Majority Opinion on the U.S. Supreme Court (2007) American Journal of Political Science, 51 (4), pp. 890-905
dc.relation.referencesBoyd, Christina L., Epstein, Lee, Martin, Andrew D., Untangling the Causal Effects of Sex on Judging (2010) American Journal of Political Science, 54 (2), pp. 389-411
dc.relation.referencesBrennan, William J., In Defense of Dissents (1986) Hastings Law Journal, 37, pp. 427-438
dc.relation.referencesBricker, Benjamin, Breaking the Principle of Secrecy: An Examination of Judicial Dissent in the European Constitutional Courts (2017) Law & Policy, 39 (2), pp. 170-191
dc.relation.referencesCameron, Charles M., Kornhauser, Lewis A, Modeling Collegial Courts (3): Adjudication Equilibria (Revised) (2010) NYU School of Law, pp. 12-52
dc.relation.referencesCaminker, Evan H., Sincere and Strategic Voting Norms on Multimember Courts (1999) Michigan Law Review, 97 (8), pp. 2297-2380
dc.relation.referencesCappelletti, Mauro, Ideologie Nel Diritto Processuale (1962) Conference at the University of Macerata
dc.relation.referencesCarrubba, Cliff, Friedman, Barry, Martin, Andrew D., Vanberg, Georg, Who Controls the Content of Supreme Court Opinions? (2012) American Journal of Political Science, 56 (2), pp. 400-412
dc.relation.referencesCaviedes, Cristóbal, A core case for supermajority rules in constitutional adjudica-tion (2022) International Journal of Constitutional Law, 20 (3), pp. 1162-1187
dc.relation.referencesCohen, Mathilde, Ex Ante Versus Ex Post Deliberations: Two Models of Judicial Deliberations in Courts of Last Resort (2014) American Journal of Comparative Law, 62 (4), pp. 951-1007
dc.relation.referencesSilva, Da, Afonso, Virgílio, Deciding without deliberating (2013) International Journal of Constitutional Law, 11 (3), pp. 557-584
dc.relation.referencesDe Condorcet, Nicolas, (2014) Essai sur l’application de l’analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues à la pluralité des voix, , (Cambridge, Cambridge Library Collection)
dc.relation.referencesDevins, Neal, Ideological Cohesion and Precedent (Or Why the Court Only Cares About Precedent When Most Justices Agree With Each Other) (2008) North Carolina Law Review, (86), pp. 1399-1442
dc.relation.referencesDunoff, Jeffrey, Pollack, Mark, The Road Not Taken: Comparative International Judicial Dissent (2022) American Journal of International Law, 116 (2), pp. 340-396
dc.relation.referencesDworkin, Ronald, (1986) Law’s Empire, , (Cambridge, Harvard University Press)
dc.relation.referencesDyevre, Arthur, Unifying the field of comparative judicial politics: towards a general theory of judicial behaviour (2010) European Political Science Review, 2 (2), pp. 297-327
dc.relation.referencesDyevre, Arthur, Jakab, András, Foreword: Understanding Constitutional Reason-ing (2013) German Law Journal, (14), pp. 983-1015
dc.relation.referencesDyevre, Arthur, Jakab, András, Domestic judicial non-compliance in the European Union: a Political Economic Approach (2013) LSE law, society and economy working papers London School of Economics and Political Science, pp. 1-34
dc.relation.referencesEasterbrook, Frank H., Ways of Criticizing the Court (1982) Harvard Law Review, (95), pp. 802-832
dc.relation.referencesEngst, Benjamin G., (2021) The Two Faces of Judicial Power: Dynamics of Judicial-Political Bar-gaining, , (Cham, Palgrave Macmillan)
dc.relation.referencesEpstein, Lee, Knight, Jack, How social identity and social diversity affect judging (2022) Leiden Journal of International Law, 35 (4), pp. 897-911
dc.relation.referencesEpstein, Lee, Knight, Jack, Toward a Strategic Revolution in Judicial Politics: A Look Back, A Look Ahead (2000) Political Research Quarterly, 53 (3), pp. 625-661
dc.relation.referencesEpstein, Lee, Weinshall, Keren, (2021) The Strategic Analysis of Judicial Behavior: A Comparative Perspective, , (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press)
dc.relation.referencesEpstein, Lee, Landes, William M., Posner, Richard, (2013) The Behavior of Federal Judges: A Theoretical & Empirical Study of Rational Choice, , (Cambridge, Harvard University Press)
dc.relation.referencesEpstein, Lee, Landes, William M., Posner, Richard, Why (And When) Judges Dissent: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis (2011) Journal of Legal Analysis, 3 (1), pp. 101-137
dc.relation.referencesEpstein, Lee, Shvetsova, Olga, Heresthetical Maneuvering on the US Supreme Court (2002) Journal of Theoretical Politics, 14 (1), pp. 93-122
dc.relation.referencesErnst, Wolfgang, Gsell, Beate, Häcker, Birke, Rüfner, Thomas, Concluding Re-marks (2020) Collective Judging in Comparative Perspective. Counting Votes and Weighing Opinions, pp. 339-342. , (Cambridge, Intersentia Studies on Courts and Judges)
dc.relation.referencesFriedman, Barry, Lemos, Margaret H., Martin, Andrew D., Clark, Tom S., Orr Larsen, Allison, Harvey, Anna, (2020) Judicial Decision-Making A Coursebook, , (St. Paul, West Aca-demic Publishing)
dc.relation.referencesGaroupa, Nuno, Santos Botelho, Catarina, Judicial Dissent in Collegial Courts: Theory and Evidence (2022) Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, pp. 1-19
dc.relation.referencesGragl, Paul, The faceless court? The role of individual CJEU members (2023) Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, pp. 1-30. , (0, 0)
dc.relation.referencesGrimm, Dieter, To be a Constitutional Court Judge (2003) Distinguished Fellow Lecture Series, , (9 J.H.H. Weiler ed)
dc.relation.referencesHâcker, Birke, Ernst, Wolfgang, The Fine-Mechanics of Judicial Majori-tarianism (2020) Collective Judging in Comparative Perspective. Counting Votes and Weighing Opinions, pp. 3-18. , (eds) (Cambridge, Intersentia Studies on Courts and Judges)
dc.relation.referencesHandelsman, Jed, A Six-Three Rule: Reviving Consensus and Deference on the Supreme Court (2003) Georgia Law Review, 37 (3), pp. 893-1019
dc.relation.referencesHarding, Andrew, Leyland, Peter, Groppi, Tania, Constitutional Courts: Forms, Functions and Practice in Comparative Perspective (2009) Constitutional Courts: A Com-
dc.relation.referencesparative Study (JCL Studies in Comparative Law), , (London, Wildy, Simmonds & Hill Publishing)
dc.relation.referencesHazelton, Morgan L. W., Hinkle, Rachael K., (2017) The Elevator Effect: How Collegiali-ty Impacts Dissent, , http://mjnelson.org/papers/HHN.Elevator.Effect.pdf, [Available in]. Working paper
dc.relation.referencesHenderson, M. Todd, From Seriatim to Consensus and Back Again: A Theory of Dissent (2007) Supreme Court Review, pp. 283-330
dc.relation.referencesHirschl, Ran, (2014) Comparative Matters, The Renaissance of Comparative Constitutional Law, , (Oxford, Oxford University Press)
dc.relation.referencesJanis, Irvis L., (1972) Victims of Groupthinking: A Psychological Study of Foreign Policy Decisions and Fiascoes, , (Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company)
dc.relation.referencesJakab, András, Judicial Reasoning in Constitutional Courts: A European Perspective (2013) German Law Journal, (14), pp. 1215-1275
dc.relation.referencesJakab, András, Dyevre, Arthur, Itzcovich, Giulio, (2017) Comparative Constitutional Reasoning, , (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press)
dc.relation.referencesJUDICON research project, , https://judicon.tk.hu/en/project-description, [Available in] [Con-sulting date: July 7, 2022]
dc.relation.referencesJUDICON-EU comparative project, , https://judiconeu.uni-nke.hu/about, [Available in] [Con-sulting date: July 7, 2022]
dc.relation.referencesKahneman, Daniel, Sibony, Olivier, Sunstein, Cass R., (2021) Noise-A Flaw in Human Judgment, , (New York, Little, Brown, Spark)
dc.relation.referencesKastellec, Jonathan P., Racial Diversity and Judicial Influence on Appellate Courts (2013) American Journal of Political Science, 57 (1), pp. 167-183
dc.relation.referencesKelemen, Katalin, Dissenting Opinions in Constitutional Courts (2013) German Law Journal, 14 (8), pp. 1345-1371
dc.relation.referencesKelemen, Katalin, (2018) Judicial Dissent In European Constitutional Courts: A comparative and Legal Perspective, , (London, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group)
dc.relation.referencesKelsen, Hans, (1967) Pure Theory of Law, , (trs Max Knight, University of California Press)
dc.relation.referencesKim, Pauline T., Deliberation and Strategy on the United States Courts of Appeals: An Empirical Exploration of Panel Effects (2009) University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 157 (5), pp. 1319-1381
dc.relation.referencesKornhauser, Lewis A., Sager, Lawrence G, Unpacking the Court (1986) Yale Law Journal, 96 (1), pp. 82-117
dc.relation.referencesKornhauser, Lewis A., Sager, Lawrence G, The One and The Many: Adjudication in Collegial Courts (1993) California Law Review, 81 (1), pp. 1-59
dc.relation.referencesKornhauser, Lewis A., Sager, Lawrence G, The Many as One: Integrity and Group Choice In Paradoxical Cases (2004) Philosophy & Public Affairs, 32 (3), pp. 249-276
dc.relation.referencesLax, Jeffrey R., The New Judicial Politics of Legal Doctrine (2011) Annual Review of Political Science, (14), pp. 131-157
dc.relation.referencesLieblich, Eliav, How to Do Research in International Law? A Basic Guide for Begin-ners (2021) Harvard International Law Journal, 62, pp. 42-67
dc.relation.referencesList, Christian, Pettit, Philip, On the Many as One: A Reply to Kornhauser and Sager (2005) Philosophy & Public Affairs, 33 (4), pp. 377-390
dc.relation.referencesMaučec, Gregor, Dothan, Shai, Judicial Dissent at the International Criminal Court: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis (2022) Leiden Journal of International Law, 35 (4), pp. 945-961
dc.relation.referencesMistry, Hemi, A Performative Theory of Judicial Dissent (2023) The Modern Law Review, 86 (3), pp. 729-755
dc.relation.referencesMuro, Sergio, Amaral-Garcia, Sofía, Chehtman, Alejandro, Garoupa, Nuno, Ex-ploring dissent in the Supreme Court of Argentina (2020) in International Review of Law and Economics, (63), pp. 1-13
dc.relation.referencesNash, Jonathan, Measuring Judicial Collegiality Through Dissent (2022) Buffalo Law Review, 70 (4), pp. 1561-1635
dc.relation.referencesPeresie, Jennifer L., Female Judges Matter: Gender and Collegial Decision making in the Federal Appellate Courts (2005) Yale Law Journal, 114 (7), pp. 1759-1790
dc.relation.referencesPerugini, Laura, La Acción Declarativa de Inconstitucionalidad y la Acción Mera-mente Declarativa. Explicación Necesaria de sus Diferencias (2010) Revista áDA Ciudad, (3), pp. 307-317
dc.relation.referencesRawls, John, (1993) Political Liberalism, , (New York, Columbia University Press)
dc.relation.referencesRevesz, Richard L., Environmental Regulation, Ideology, and the D. C. Circuit (1997) Virginia Law Review, 83 (8), pp. 1717-1772
dc.relation.referencesRoach Anleu, Sharyn, Mack, Kathy, Trial Courts and Adjudication (2012) The Oxford Handbook of Empirical Legal Research, pp. 546-572. , (Peter Cane & Herbert M. Kritzer eds)
dc.relation.referencesRogers, Owen, I beg to differ’: Are our courts too agreeable? (2022) South African Law Journal, 139 (2), pp. 300-339
dc.relation.referencesStack, Kevin M., The Practice of Dissent in The Supreme Court (1996) Yale Law Journal, 105 (8), pp. 2235-2259
dc.relation.referencesStadelmann, Thomas, Collective Judging at the Swiss Supreme Court (2020) Collective Judging in Comparative Perspective. Counting Votes and Weighing Opinions, pp. 181-184. , (Cambridge, Intersentia Studies on Courts and Judges)
dc.relation.referencesStaton, Jeffrey K., Vanberg, Georg, The Value of Vagueness: Delegation, Defiance, and Judicial Opinions (2008) American Journal of Political Science, 52 (3), pp. 504-519
dc.relation.referencesSatvinder, Juss S., Religious Satire, Moral Restraint and the Charlie Hebdo Car-toons (2022) Human Rights Quarterly, 44 (1), pp. 142-167
dc.relation.referencesStone Sweet, Alec, (2000) Governing with Judges, , (Oxford, Oxford University Press)
dc.relation.referencesSunstein, Cass R., Group Judgments: Statistical Means, Deliberation, and Information Markets (2005) New York University Law Review, (80), pp. 962-1049
dc.relation.referencesSunstein, Cass R., Schkade, David, Ellman, Lisa M., Sawicki, Andres, (2006) Are Judges Political? An Empirical Analysis of the Federal Judiciary, , (Washington D. C., Brookings Institution Press)
dc.relation.referencesVanberg, Georg, Legislative-Judicial Relations: A Game-Theoretic Approach to Constitutional Review (2001) American Journal of Political Science, 45 (2), pp. 346-361
dc.relation.references(2018) Report on separate opinions of constitutional courts, adopted by the Venice Commission at its 117th Plenary Session, , (Venice, 14-15 December 2018)
dc.relation.referencesWaldron, Jeremy, Five to Four: Why do Bare Majorities Rule on Courts? (2014) Yale Law Journal, 123 (6), pp. 1692-1730
dc.type.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.identifier.reponamereponame:Repositorio Institucional Universidad de Medellín
dc.identifier.repourlrepourl:https://repository.udem.edu.co/
dc.identifier.instnameinstname:Universidad de Medellín


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record