What Is Meant by Judicialization - Assignment Example

Part What is meant by Judicialization? some examples of active Judicialization at the level, in a comparative framework and at international level. Judicialization Judicialization generally refers to the interference and influence of courts, judges and judicial institutes on the policy making and functioning of other political and state institutes (Blichner & Molander, 2005). This phenomenon has gained much more popularity in the recent past with the increase in political awareness of people. It could be seen as the construction and expansion of judicial power, the use of rules and framework that have been developed by the courts, and the spread of law and rule guided action and principals in the public and private settings. Judicialization at the national level comes at the expense of political, private and bureaucratic powers. This is because at all times there should be a balance of power. Therefore as the power of the judiciary increases, that of other power holders reduces. This in creates conflict and a power struggle (Blichner & Molander, 2005). The Judicialization of politics is now becoming a common phenomenon, courts are now influencing the policy making decisions that previously had not been within their range. The political decision making is shaped by principals articulated by judges. Increasing cases of judicial review of the administrative actions is interfering with the bureaucratic system. Judicialization is also influencing the private actors, as their right to create and organize rules is restricted by judicially enforced public policies. An example of political Judicialization at state level is the civil judiciary in Israel. Supreme Court justices in Israel are exercising power at the expense of politicians and bureaucratic administrators. They even claim the authority to review the internal workings of the theoretically sovereign parliament. In comparative perspective, the difference in the features of Law and Courts across different nations such as structural and constitutional judicial features like appointment rules, powers of judicial review and separation of powers, mechanism for resolving intergovernmental relations and legal tradition is the reason of difference in their comparative Judicialization potency (Blichner & Molander, 2005). For example In the United States, judicial appointment to the federal bench is primarily the exclusive right of the Executive branch and such appointments are life-tenures by rule. While on the other hand in France guarantees of life tenure are absent. European countries have generally preferred judicial predictability over independence. Judicialization is becoming very prominent at international level, and its effect on the functioning of the global governance is gradually increasing. Many aspects of inter national relations are regulated by international legal norms. The legal norms in issue areas such as: trade, finance, environment and security have been regularly being embedded in legal infrastructures to ensure that these should not be violated. International bodies have been created to define and regulate legal norms regarding these issue areas. Some examples of these international institutions which regulate and define these norms are World Trade Organization (WTO), International Criminal Court, International Tribunal for the law of the Sea, European Court of Human rights, World Health Organization (WHO) and International Court of Justice etc. The degree of Judicialization varies substantially across issue areas and the trend towards Judicialization is not one way in all issue areas of international relations. Part 2 According to scholars the implementation of the United States Constitution along with historical evolution has reversed the principal agent relationship between the government and American citizens. Discuss this argument in light of the following questions: i) How has the power relationship between government and the individual evolved in the modern era? ii) Even if citizens are now the principles to the government as agent, what specific challenges do unpopular minority groups face and how might they overcome those challenges? The dynamics of the agent principal relationship are complex (Eisenhardt, 1989). This is because the principal-agent relationship between the government and its people has information issues (Eisenhardt, 1989). The monitoring of information is not possible for the principal (the public) due to high costs associated with information monitoring. Moreover the government can control the flow of information due to any reasons which includes national security (Eisenhardt, 1989). There have been many examples in the recent past of the government willingly controlling the information flow to the public. In the modern era however this relationship has evolved. This evolution has been affected by the increased role and advancements in information Medias (Eisenhardt, 1989). The electronic media has made the monitoring of information much easier for the general public. They have reduced the burden of information monitoring on the general public. Third party monitors such as new channels, news paper etc still play a central role in this monitoring process (Eisenhardt, 1989). The implementation of the Unites States constitution has strengthened the role of government as agents to the public. The main issue in this relationship is still the information asymmetry. The government does not share the information with the principal i.e. the general public. Therefore the question arises that at what point the agent stop working for the principal and pursues their own goal. This dilemma can never be solved until the issues of information asymmetry are solved. As mentioned in the new information age the electronic sources of information has eliminated to some extent this information asymmetry (Rees, 1985). Therefore the role of the public as principals to the government has become stronger. The people through their voting rights can directly affect government policies. Moreover media acts as a third part and voices the rights of people, therefore also affecting the government’s decisions (Rees, 1985). Therefore we can say that the agent-principal relationship has become stronger because information asymmetries have been removed. The principle can now better safeguard their own rights and the agents (government) are under more pressure to do the same (Rees, 1985). The minority groups become even less strong in this new power system. This is because when public has most of the power, the majority would have the control. Therefore the minority groups lose control and are therefore subject to decisions of majority. To counter this best method is to affect the majority opinion by generating information. This information should be aimed at increasing the support for their causes and thus converting unpopular minority into popular majority. Works Cited Eisenhardt, K. (1989) Agency theory: An assessment and review, Academy of Management Review. Rees, R., 1985. The Theory of Principal and Agent—Part I. Bulletin of Economic Research Rees, R., 1985. The Theory of Principal and Agent—Part II. Bulletin of Economic Research, Blichner, L. Molander, A. (2005). What is juridification? Center for European Studies: Working Paper Edelman, M.(1994). The Judicialization of Politics in Israel. Sage Publications Read More