Innovative Judicial Procedures and Redefinition of the Institutional Role of the Argentine Supreme Court

Abstract

This article addresses the way in which the Argentine Supreme Court has set out to redefi ne its own institutional role through its procedures and decisions, since its institutional reform in 2003. It shows that the Court has developed innovative ways of judicial intervention in public policy and rights issues, which include the participation of new kinds of actors and entail an emerging new relationship between the Court and civil society organizations in Argentina. The article argues that this change can be understood as a way for the Court to rebuild its institutional legitimacy, and that the reform is connected to the presence of strong nongovernmental organizations whose claims for a change in the Court's composition and procedures gained momentum in the aftermath of the social and political crisis of 2001-2002 in Argentina.

Who Are You and What’s Your Issue? Winning in Collective Litigation in Colombia

“…In environmental cases, the council uses interpretation, building on the content of existing regulations to decide, but in administrative morality (where regulations are scarce) the council has avoided policy making, which would be necessary to determine the responsibility of the government. 18 This behavior fits the pattern of strategic judicial behavior that argues that one key concern of judges is maintaining their courts' institutional power (Botero and Gamboa 2021;Ruibal 2012).…”

Federalism and Subnational Legal Mobilization: Feminist Litigation Strategies in Salta, Argentina

“…The feminist movement's lack of systematic recourse to national courts has taken place after the constitutional reform of 1994 broadened the scope of amparo briefs, and also conferred constitutional status to human rights treaties ratified by Argentina, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, (CEDAW) (art. 75), and even after the reform of the Supreme Court in 2003 expanded the legal opportunity for social movement claims (Ruibal , ).…”