Democracy, judicialisation and the emergence of the Supreme Court as a policy-maker in Mexico (original) (raw)

Abstract

In 1994, four days after taking office, Ernesto Zedillo, the last president to govern Mexico emerging from the once hegemonic National Revolutionary Party, promoted a major redesign of the Supreme Court of Justice that substantially expanded its constitutional review powers and reduced its size from 26 to 11 members. The operation of this more compact and powerful body was left in charge of 11 justices nominated by Zedillo. During the period 1917-1994, the Supreme Court adjudicated only 63 constitutional cases of its exclusive jurisdiction. In contrast, since the reform came into force in 1995, it has been the arena in which more than two thousand constitutional cases have been ultimately settled. Why do courts established under authoritarian rule become effective policy-makers as democracy develops? Using Mexico as a case study and drawing on the strategic approach for the study of courts, this thesis argues that the Supreme Court turned into an effective policy-maker as a result of the convergence of three factors: institutional change (from judicial reform), political fragmentation (from democratisation) and an unprecedented internal stability. Judicial reform set a new institutional framework; political fragmentation triggered the use of constitutional review by political actors; and stability enhanced experience within the Court and prompted justices to more proactively engage in policy-making. Through an appealing case study, a novel research strategy and original evidence consisting of four original datasets and thirty-five elite-interviews, this thesis contributes, first, to the comparative analysis of courts by offering a systematic and comprehensive account of judicial rulings and precedents and their impact both within and beyond judicial boundaries; second, to the judicialisation literature by highlighting the effects of the delegation of power to courts on judicial performance; and third, to the Mexican politics scholarship by providing a re-assessment of the role of the Supreme Court in regime dynamics.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (272)

  1. Coefficients with standard errors in parentheses * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 Bibliography
  2. Adams, J. A. (1997). Mexican banking and investment in transition: Quorum Books.
  3. Agresti, A. (2007). An introduction to categorical data analysis (Vol. 423): Wiley-Interscience.
  4. Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (2009). Statistical methods for the social sciences (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.
  5. Aguinaco Aleman, V., Aguirre Anguiano, S., Azuela, M., D¡az Romero, J., & Ortiz Mayagoitia, G. (2002). La Suprema Corte de Justicia y el Derecho a la Vida. Sentencia sobre el Aborto. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Ciencia Penales.
  6. Almond, G. A. (1989). A discipline divided: schools and sects in political science (Vol. 175): Sage Publications, Incorporated.
  7. Ansolabehere, K. (2007). La Politica desde la Justicia. Cortes Supremas, Gobierno y Democracia en Argentina y Mexico. Mexico City: Flacso-Fontamara.
  8. Arnold, L. (1996). Politica y justicia: la Suprema Corte mexicana (1824-1855). Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico.
  9. Azuela, A. (1989). La ciudad, la propiedad privada y el derecho. Mexico City: El Colegio de Mexico.
  10. Azuela, A. (2010). Property in the Post-post-revolution: Notes on the Crisis of the Constitutional Idea of Property in Contemporary Mexico. Tex. L. Rev., 89, 1915.
  11. Azuela, A., & Cancino, M. A. (2006). Los Asentamientos Humanos y la Mirada Parcial del Constitucionalismo Mexicano. Mexico City.
  12. Ballinger, G. A. (2004). Using generalized estimating equations for longitudinal data analysis. Organizational research methods, 7(2), 127-150.
  13. Bankowski, Z., MacCormick, N., Morawski, L., & Ruiz Miguel, A. (1997). Rationales for Precedent. In N. MacCormick & R. Summers (Eds.), Interpreting Precedents: A Comparative Study (pp. 481-502). Vermont: MacCormick, Neil. Interpreting precedents: a comparative study. Dartmouth Pub Co, 1997.
  14. Barnes, J. (2004). Overruled?: legislative overrides, pluralism, and contemporary court-Congress relations: Stanford University Press.
  15. Barragan , H. M. (2002). Los limites territoriales en el occidente de Mexico.
  16. Barron, C., & Najera, M. (n.d.). Situacion Legal del Aborto en Mexico. http://www.cladem.org/espanol/nacionales/mexico/aborto\_mexico.asp
  17. Basañez, M. (2006). Ideologies and Values Changing Structure of Mexico. Political, Social and Economic Prospects: M.E. Sharpe.
  18. Baum, L. (1994). What Judges Want: Judges' Goals and Judicial Behavior. Political Research Quarterly, 47(3), 749-768.
  19. Baum, L. (1997). The puzzle of judicial behavior. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  20. Baum, L. (2006). Judges and their audiences : a perspective on judicial behavior. Princeton, N.J. ; Oxford: Princeton University Press.
  21. Becerril, A. (2007, 5 May 2007). La ley Televisa, una imposicion previa a las elecciones de 2006, segun Creel, La Jornada.
  22. Beer, C. C. (2006). Judicial Performance and the Rule of Law in the Mexican States. Latin American Politics and Society, 448(3), 33-61.
  23. Berruecos, S. (2003). Electoral Justice in Mexico: The Role of the Electoral Tribunal under New Federalism. Journal of Latin American Studies, 35(4), 801-825.
  24. Berruecos, S. (2004). La Suprema Corte de Justicia en el contexto del nuevo federalismo. In IFE (Ed.), El Poder Judicial en la transicion y consolidacion democratica en Mexico. Mexico City: Instituto Federal Electoral.
  25. Bickel, A. M. (1962). The least dangerous branch : the Supreme Court at the bar of politics. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
  26. Billings, D. L., Moreno, C., Ramos, C., Gonzalez de Leon, D., Ramirez, R., Villaseñor Martinez, L., & Rivera Diaz, M. (2002). Constructing access to legal abortion services in Mexico City. Reproductive Health Matters, 10(19), 86-94.
  27. Cabrera, L. (1990). La Suprema Corte de Justicia durante el fortalecimiento del Porfirismo (1882-1888). Mexico City: Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nacion.
  28. Camp, R. A. (1994). The Cross in the Polling Booth: Religion, Politics, and the Laity in Mexico. Latin American Research Review, 29(3), 69-100.
  29. Camp, R. A. (2011). Mexican Political Biographies 1934-2009: University of Texas Press.
  30. Cappelletti, M. (1970). Judicial Review in Comparative Perspective. California Law Review, 58(5), 1017-1053.
  31. Carbonell, M. (1995). Una aproximacion al surgimiento historico de la jurisprudencia en Mexico. Revista de la Facultad de Derecho de Mexico(199), 63-93.
  32. Carbonell, M. (2004). Los derechos fundamentales en Mexico. Mexico City: UNAM.
  33. Cardozo, B. N. (1921). The nature of the judicial process: Yale University Press.
  34. Carpizo, J. (2009). Otra reforma constitucional: la subordinacion del Consejo de la Judicatura Federal. Cuestiones Constitucionales(002).
  35. Casar, M. A. (2002). Executive-Legislative Relations: The Case of Mexico (1946-1997). Legislative Politics in Latin America, 114, 114.
  36. CIDAC. (2008). Base de datos de elecciones locales 1980-2008. from Centro de Investigacion para el Desarrollo http://www.cidac.org/es/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage& pid=1000022
  37. CIDAC. (2011). Base de datos de elecciones federales. from Centro de Investigacion para el Desarrollo http://www.cidac.org/es/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage& pid=1000022
  38. Clayton, C. W., & Gillman, H. (Eds.). (1999). Supreme Court decision-making: New institutionalist approaches. University of Chicago Press.
  39. Clayton, C., & May, D. A. (1999). A Political Regimes Approach to the Analysis of Legal Decisions. Polity, 32(2), 233-252.
  40. Cohen, S. A. (2009). Facts and Consequences: Legality, Incidence and Safety of Abortion Worldwide. Guttmacher Policy Review, 12(4).
  41. Cohen, S. A., & Richards, C. L. (1994). The Cairo Consensus: Population, Development and Women. Family Planning Perspectives, 26(6), 272-277.
  42. Collier, D., Brady, H. E., & Seawright, J. (2004). Sources of leverage in causal inference: Toward an alternative view of methodology. Rethinking social inquiry: Diverse tools, shared standards, 229-266.
  43. Collier, R. B., & Mahoney, J. (1997). Adding collective actors to collective outcomes: labor and recent democratization in South America and Southern Europe. Comparative Politics, 285-303.
  44. CONAPO. (2004). Informe de Ejecucion del Programa de Accion de la Conferencia Internacional sobre la Poblacion y el Desarrollo 1994-2003. CONAPO Retrieved from www.conapo.gob.mx/prensa/informes/CIPD.pdf
  45. Concha, H., & Caballerlo, J. A. (2001). Diagnostico sobre la administracion de justicia en las entidades federativas: un estudio institucional sobre la justicia local en Mexico. Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones Juridicas, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico.
  46. Cook, R. J. (1993). International human rights and women's reproductive health. Studies in Family Planning, 73-86.
  47. Cornelius, W. A., & Myhre, D. (1998). The transformation of rural Mexico : reforming the ejido sector. La Jolla: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego.
  48. Cosio Villegas, D. (1964). El sistema politico mexicano: Joaquin Mortiz.
  49. Cossio Diaz, J. R. (2002). La Teoria Constitucional de la Suprema Corte de Justicia. Mexico City: Fontamara.
  50. Cossio Diaz, J. R. (2008). La Controversia Constitucional Mexico City: Porrua.
  51. Cossio Diaz, J. R. (2012, 7 February 2012). Las comisiones de derechos humanos y las acciones de inconstitucionalidad, El Universal.
  52. Courchene, T., & Diaz-Cayeros, A. (2000). Transfers and the Nature of the Mexican Federation Achievements and Challenges of Fiscal Decentralization. Lessons From Mexico. Washington: The World Bank.
  53. Courtis, C. (2006). Judicial enforcement of social rights: Perspectives from Latin America. In R. Gargarella, P. Domingo and T. Roux (Eds), Courts and Social Transformation in New Democracies:An Institutional Voice for the Poor. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing).
  54. Cox, G. W., & Terry, W. C. (2008). Legislative Productivity in the 93d–105th Congresses. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 33(4), 603-618.
  55. Crane, B. (1994). The Trasnational Politics of Abortion. International Family Planning Perspectives, 20(Supplement), 241-262.
  56. Dahl, R. (1957). Decision-Making in Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker. Journal of Public Law, 6, 279-295.
  57. Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy : participation and opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  58. David, H. P. (1992). Abortion in Europe, 1920-91: A Public Health Perspective. Studies in Family Planning, 23(1), 1-22.
  59. Del Duca, L. F. (1991). Historic Convergence of Civil and Common Law Systems-Italy's New Adversarial Criminal Procedure System, An. Dick. J. Int'l L., 10, 73.
  60. Del Duca, P. (2003). The Rule of Law: Mexico's Approach to Expropriation Disputes in the Face of Investment Globalization. UCLA Law Review, 51. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.434340
  61. Diamond, L. (1994). Toward democratic consolidation. Journal of Democracy, 5(3), 4-17.
  62. Diaz Cayeros, A. (2006). Federalism, fiscal authority, and centralization in Latin America. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
  63. Diaz Diaz, M. (1992). Tres contextos nacionales para la expropiacion forzosa: Argentina, España y Mexico. Revista de Investigaciones Juridicas, 16(16).
  64. Diaz Diaz, M. (1997). La constitucion ambivalente: notas para un analisis de sus polos de tension Ochenta aniversario. Homenaje. Constitucion politica de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones Juridicas -UNAM.
  65. Domingo, P. (2000). Judicial Independence: The Politics of the Supreme Court in Mexico. Journal of Latin American Studies, 32(03), 705-735.
  66. Driscoll, B. (2005). La Controversia del Aborto en Estados Unidos: Universidad Nacional Aut¢noma de M‚xico, Instituto de investigaciones Filos¢ficas: Fondo de Cultura Econ¢mica.
  67. Dworkin, R. (1978). Taking rights seriously: Harvard University Press.
  68. Eisenstadt, T. A. (2007). The Origins and Rationality of the Legal versus Legitimate Dichotomy Invoked in Mexico's 2006 Post-Electoral Conflict. PS: Political Science & Politics, 40(01), 39-43.
  69. Elizondo Mayer-Serra, C. (2001). La Importancia de las Reglas: Gobierno y Empresario Despues de la Nacionalizacion Bancaria. Mexico City: Fondon de Cultura Economica.
  70. Elizondo Mayer-Serra, C. & Magaloni, A. L. (2010). ¿Por que nos cuenta tanto dinero la Suprema Corte? Mexico City: CIDE (Serie: El Uso y Abuso de los Recursos Publicos No. 6)
  71. Elster, J. (1988). Introduction. In J. Elster & R. Slagstad (Eds.), Constitutionalism and democracy. Cambridge: Cambride Univerity Press.
  72. Epp, C. R. (1998). The rights revolution : lawyers, activists, and supreme courts in comparative perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  73. Epstein, L., & Knight, J. (1998). The choices justices make. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
  74. Epstein, L., & Knight, J. (2000). Toward a Strategic Revolution in Judicial Politics: A Look Back, A Look Ahead. Political Research Quarterly, 53(3), 625-661.
  75. Epstein, L., Knight, J., & Shvetsova, O. (2001). The Role of Constitutional Courts in the Establishment and Maintenance of Democratic Systems of Government. Law & Society Review, 35(1), 117-164.
  76. Epstein, L., & Kobylka, J. F. (1992). The Supreme Court and legal change : abortion and the death penalty. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
  77. Epstein, L., Walker, T. G., Staudt, N., Hendrickson, S., & Roberts, J. (2010). The U.S. Supreme Court Justices Database. Retrieved from: http://epstein.usc.edu/research/justicesdata.html
  78. Eskridge Jr, W. N. (1991). Overriding Supreme Court statutory interpretation decisions. Yale Law Journal, 331-455.
  79. Esteinou, M. J., & Alva de la Selva, A. R. (Eds.). (2009). La Ley Televisa y la Lucha por el Poder en Mexico. Mexico City: Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana.
  80. Fallon Jr, R. H. (1997). Rule of Law as a Concept in Constitutional Discourse, The. Colum. L. Rev., 97, 1.
  81. Feeley, M. M., & Rubin, E. L. (2000). Judicial policy making and the modern state: How the courts reformed America's prisons: Cambridge University Press.
  82. Feld, L. P., & Voigt, S. (2003). Economic growth and judicial independence: cross-country evidence using a new set of indicators. European Journal of Political Economy, 19(3), 497-527.
  83. Ferejohn, J. (2002). Judicializing Politics, Politicizing Law. Law and Contemporary Problems, 65.
  84. Ferejohn, J., & Pasquino, P. (2003). Constitutional adjudication: lessons from Europe. Tex. L. Rev., 82, 1671.
  85. Ferejohn, J., Rosenbluth, F., & Shipan, C. (2004). Comparative Judicial Politics. The Georg Walter Leitner Program in International and Comparative Political Economy.
  86. Ferejohn, J., & Weingast, B. (1992). A positive theory of statutory interpretation. International Review of Law and Economics, 12(2), 263- 279.
  87. Finkel, J. (2004). Judicial Reform as Insurance Policy: Mexico in the 1990s. Latin American Politics and Society, 46(4), 87-113.
  88. Finkel, J. S. (2008). Judicial reform as political insurance : Argentina, Peru, and Mexico in the 1990s. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press.
  89. Finkle, J. L., & Crane, B. B. (1985). Ideology and Politics at Mexico City: The United States at the 1984 International Conference on Population. Population and Development Review, 11(1), 1-28.
  90. Fix-Fierro, H. (2000). El Poder Judicial. In M. d. R. Gonzalez & S. Lopez Ayllon (Eds.), Transiciones y Diseños Intitucionales. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico.
  91. Fix-Fierro, H. (2003). La Reforma Judicial en Mexico: ¿de donde viene?, ¿hacia donde va? Reforma Judicial. Revista Mexicana de Justicia, 251-324.
  92. Fix-Zamudio, H. (1991). Tres instituciones frances revolucionarias y el derecho constitucional mexicano Bicentenario de la Revolucion Francesa. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico.
  93. Fix-Zamudio, H. (1999). El amparo mexicano como instrumento protector de los derechos humanos Garantias jurisdiccionales para la defensa de los derechos humanos en Iberoamerica (pp. 619-666).
  94. Fix-Zamudio, H., & Cossio Diaz, J. R. (1996). El Poder Judicial en el Ordenamiento Mexicano. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Economica.
  95. Flores-Macias, F., & Lawson, C. (2006). Mexican democracy and its discontents. Review of Policy Research, 23(2), 287-294.
  96. Fowler, W. (Ed.). (2008). Gobernantes mexicanos: 1821-1910. I (Vol. 1). Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Economica.
  97. Fuentes, V. (2008). Critican postura de Soberanes por aborto, Reforma.
  98. Garza, G. (2003). La urbanizaci¢n de M‚xico en el siglo XX: El Colegio de Mexico.
  99. Geddes, B. (1999). What do we know about democratization after twenty years? Annual Review of Political Science, 2(1), 115-144.
  100. Gerhardt, M. J. (2008). The power of precedent: Oxford University Press, USA.
  101. Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? American Political Science Review, 98(02), 341-354.
  102. Gerring, J. (2007). Case study research: principles and practices: Cambridge Univ Pr.
  103. Gillman, H. (2001). What's Law Got to Do with It? Judicial Behavioralists Test the "Legal Model" of Judicial Decision Making. Law & Social Inquiry, 26(2), 465-504.
  104. Gillman, H. (2002). How Political Parties Can Use the Courts to Advance Their Agendas: Federal Courts in the United States, 1875-1891. The American Political Science Review, 96(3), 511-524.
  105. Ginsburg, T. (2003). Judicial review in new democracies: Constitutional courts in Asian cases: Cambridge University Press.
  106. Ginsburg, T. (2008). The Global Spread of Constitutional Review. In G. A. Caldeira, R. D. Kelemen & K. E. Whittington (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of law and politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  107. Ginsburg, T., & Moustafa, T. (Eds.). (2008). Rule By Law. The Politics of Courts in Authoritarian Regimes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  108. GIRE. (2008). The Process of Decriminalizing Abortion in Mexico City. Mexico City: Grupo de Informacion en Reproduccion Elegida.
  109. GIRE. (2012). Reformas que protegen la vida desde la concepcion.
  110. Gonzalez Casanova, P. (1967). La Democracia en Mexico. Mexico City: Era.
  111. Gonzalez Oropeza, M. (2011). La jurisprudencia: Su conocimiento y forma de reportarla. Mexico City: Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nacion.
  112. Graber, M. A. (2002). Constitutional Politics and Constitutional Theory: A Misunderstood and Neglected Relationship. Law & Social Inquiry, 27(2), 309-338.
  113. Graber, M. A. (2005). Constitutionalism and Political Science: Imaginative Scholarship, Unimaginative Teaching. Perspectives on Politics, 3(1), 135- 148.
  114. Guarnieri, C., & Pederzoli, P. (2002). The Power of Judges. A Comparative Study of Courts and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  115. Guerra, F. X. (1988). Mexico: del antiguo regimen a la revolucion. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Economica.
  116. Haggard, S., & Kaufman, R. R. (2012). Inequality and Regime Change: Democratic Transitions and the Stability of Democratic Rule. American Political Science Review, 1(1), 1-22.
  117. Hamilton, A. (2008 [1788]). The Federalist No. 78. In A. Hamilton, J. Madison & J. Jay (Eds.), The Federalist Papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  118. Hammergren, L. A. (2002). Do judicial councils further judicial reform?: lessons from Latin America: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Democracy and Rule of Law Project.
  119. Hansford, T. G., & Spriggs, J. F. (2006). The politics of precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  120. Hart, H. L. A. (1965). The concept of law: Clarendon Press.
  121. Haussman, M. (2005). Abortion Politics in North America: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
  122. Helmke, G. (2005). Courts under constraints : judges, generals, and presidents in Argentina. Cambridge, UK ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
  123. Helmke, G., & Rosenbluth, F. (2009). Regimes and the rule of law: Judicial independence in comparative perspective. Annual Review of Political Science, 12, 345-366.
  124. Herrera, C. (2006). La expropiacion en la jurisprudencia de la Suprema Corte mexicana: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
  125. Hilbe, J. M. (2011). Negative binomial regression: Cambridge University Press.
  126. Hirschl, R. (2004). Towards Juristocracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  127. Hirschl, R. (2008). The Judicialization of Mega-Politics and the Rise of Political Courts. Annual Review of Political Science, 11(1), 93-118. doi: doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053006.183906
  128. Holland, K. M. (1991). Judicial activism in comparative perspective. London: Macmillan.
  129. Howard, R. M. (2007). Controlling Forum Choice and Controlling Policy: Congress, Courts and the IRS. Policy Studies Journal, 35(1), 109-123.
  130. Huntington, S. P. (1991). The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century: University of Oklahoma Press.
  131. Iaryczower, M., Spiller, P. T., & Tommasi, M. (2002). Judicial independence in unstable environments, Argentina 1935-1998. American Journal of Political Science, 699-716.
  132. Inclan, S. (2004). Judicial Reform and Democratization: Mexico in the 1990s. PhD Dissertation in Political Science, Boston University.
  133. INEGI. (2011). Censo de Poblacion y Vivienda 2010. from Instituto Nacional de Estadistica, Geografia e Informatica
  134. Ingram, M. C. (2009). Crafting courts in new democracies: The politics of subnational judicial reform in Brazil and Mexico. University of New Mexico.
  135. Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative science quarterly, 24(4), 602-611.
  136. Jones, G. A., & Pisa, R. A. (2000). Public-Private partnership for urban land development in Mexico: a victory for hope versus expectation? Habitat International, 24.
  137. Juarez, F., Singh, S., Garcia, S. G., & Olavarrieta, C. D. (2008). Estimates of induced abortion in Mexico: what's changed between 1990 and 2006? International Family Planning Perspectives, 158-168.
  138. Kapiszewski, D., & Taylor, M. M. (2008). Doing Courts Justice? Studying Judicial Politics in Latin America. Perspectives on Politics, 6(4), 741-767.
  139. Katz, I. (2001). La Constitucion y los Derechos Privados de Propiedad. Cuestiones Constitucionales. Revista Mexicana de Derecho Constitucional.(4), 27-48.
  140. Kelsen, H. (1942). Judicial Review of Legislation. The Journal of Politics, 4(2), 183-200.
  141. King, G. (1988). Statistical models for political science event counts: Bias in conventional procedures and evidence for the exponential Poisson regression model. American Journal of Political Science, 838-863.
  142. King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1995). The importance of research design in political science (Vol. 89, pp. 475-481): JSTOR.
  143. King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (2001). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research: Princeton University Press.
  144. Kluger, R. (2011). Simple justice: The history of Brown v. Board of Education and Black America's struggle for equality. Vintage.
  145. Knight, J., & Epstein, L. (1996). On the struggle for judicial supremacy. Law and Society Review, 87-120.
  146. Koopmans, T. (2003). Courts and political institutions : a comparative view. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  147. Kulczycki, A. (1999). The Abortion Debate in the World Arena: Macmillan Press.
  148. Kulczycki, A. (2007). The Abortion Debate in Mexico: Realities and Stalled Policy Reform. Bulletin of Latin American Research, 26(1), 50-68.
  149. Kulczycki, A. (2011). Abortion in Latin America: changes in practice, growing conflict, and recent policy developments. Studies in Family Planning, 42(3), 199-220.
  150. Laakso, M., & Taagepera, R. (1979). The 'Effective' Number of Parties: A measure with application to West Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 12(1).
  151. Lamas, M. (2001a). Del Cuerpo a la Ciudadania. El Feminismo y la Despenalizacion del Aborto en Mexico Controversias sobre el Aborto (pp. 221-239): Fondo de Cultura Economica-Universidad Nacional Aut¢noma de M‚xico.
  152. Lamas, M. (2001b). Politica y Reproduccion. Aborto: la Frontera del Derecho a Decidir: Plaza & Janes.
  153. Lamas, M. (2009). La despenalizacion del aborto en Mexico. Nueva Sociedad, 220.
  154. Langston, J. (2006). The birth and transformation of the dedazo in Mexico. In G. Helmke & S. Levitsky (Eds.), Informal Institutions and Democracy: Lessons from Latin America (pp. 143-177). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
  155. LaPorta, R., Lopez-de-Silane, F., Pop-Eleches, C., & Shleifer, A. (2003). Judicial checks and balances: National Bureau of Economic Research.
  156. Larkins, C. M. (1996). Judicial independence and democratization: A theoretical and conceptual analysis. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 605-626.
  157. Laver, R. (2011). World Bank and Judicial Reform: Overcoming Blind Spots in the Approach to Judicial Independence, The. Duke J. Comp. & Int'l L., 22, 183.
  158. Lawson, C. H. (1997). The elections of 1997. Journal of Democracy, 8(4), 13-27.
  159. Leiter, B. (2005). The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory. In M. P. Golding & W. a. Edmundson (Eds.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
  160. Leuchtenburg, W. E. (1966). The Origins of Franklin D. Roosevelt's" Court- Packing" Plan. The Supreme Court Review, 1966, 347-400.
  161. Linz, J. J., & Stepan, A. (1996). Toward Consolidated Democracies. Journal of Democracy, 7(2), 14-33.
  162. Liptak, A. (2008, 25 September 2008). A Second Justice Opts Out of a Longtime Custom: The 'Cert. Pool', The New York Times.
  163. Londregan, J. B., & Poole, K. T. (1996). Does high income promote democracy? World politics, 49, 1-30.
  164. Lowenfeld, A. F. (1971). Expropriation in the Americas; a comparative law study. New York,: Dunellen.
  165. Lujambio, A. (2000). El poder compartido: Un ensayo sobre la democratizacion mexicana: Oceano.
  166. Madrazo, A., & Zambrano, J. L. (2007). La ley de Televisa ante la Suprema Corte. Isonomia: Revista de teoria y filosofia del derecho(26), 71-102.
  167. Madrazo, J. (1985). Comentario al articulo 27 Constitucion de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos Comentada. Mexico City: UNAM.
  168. Magaloni, B. (2003). Authoritarianism, Democracy and the Supreme Court: Horizontal Exchange and the Rule of Law in Mexico. In S. P. Mainwaring & C. Welna (Eds.), Democratic Accountability in Latin America. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  169. Magaloni, B. (2006). Voting for autocracy: Hegemonic party survival and its demise in Mexico. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press.
  170. Magaloni, B. (2008). Enforcing the Autocratic Political Order and the Role of Courts: The Case of Mexico. In T. Ginsburg & T. Moustafa (Eds.), Rule By Law. The Politics of Courts in Authoritarian Regimes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  171. Magaloni, B., Magar, E., & Sanchez, A. (2011). Legalist versus Interpretativist. In G. Helmke & J. Rios Figueroa (Eds.), Courts in Latin America (pp. 187). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  172. Magaloni, B., & Sanchez, A. (2008). Institutional Origins of Supreme Court Power: Mexico 1994-2007. Paper presented at the The Dilemmas of Judicial Power: A Sawyer Seminar at the University of California Berkeley, Berkeley.
  173. Magaloni, B., & Sanchez, A. (2001). Empowering Courts as Constitutional Veto Players: Presidential Delegation and the New Mexican Supreme Court. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco.
  174. Magaloni, B., & Sanchez, A. (2006). An Authoritarian Enclave? The Supreme Court in Mexico's emerging democracy. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA. Magallon Ibarra, J. M. (2004). Los sonidos y el silencio de la jurisprudencia mexicana. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico.
  175. Magar, E., Magaloni, B., & Sanchez, A. (2010). No Self-Control: Decentralized Agenda Power and the Dimensional Structure of the Mexican Supreme Court.
  176. Maltzman, F., Spriggs, J. F., & Wahlbeck, P. J. (2000). Crafting law on the Supreme Court : the collegial game. Cambridge, U.K. ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
  177. Markesinis, B. S. (1994). The gradual convergence: foreign ideas, foreign influences, and English law on the eve of the 21st century: Clarendon Press.
  178. Marvan Laborde, I. (2009). La cuestion del gobierno representativo en el Distrito Federal mexicano. Cuestiones Constitucionales(004).
  179. McGuire, K. T. (2006). The Judicial Process and Public Policy. In R. A. W. Rhodes, S. A. Binder & B. A. Rockman (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  180. McGuire, K. T., Vanberg, G., Smith Jr, C. E., & Caldeira, G. A. (2009). Measuring Policy Content on the US Supreme Court. Journal of Politics, 71(4), 1305-1321.
  181. Mendez, J. E., O'Donnell, G., Pinheiro, P. S. d. M. S., & Helen Kellogg Institute for International Studies. (1999). The (un)rule of law and the underprivileged in Latin America. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press.
  182. Merryman, J. H. (1985). The civil law tradition : an introduction to the legal systems of Western Europe and Latin America (2nd ed ed.). Stanford, Ca.: Stanford University Press.
  183. Meyer, L., & Aguilar Camin, H. (1990). A la sombra de la revolucion mexicana. Mexico City.
  184. Minor, M. S. (1994). The Demise of Expropriation as an Instrument of LDC Policy, 1980-1992 (Vol. 25, pp. 177-188): Palgrave Macmillan Journals.
  185. Mirow, M. (2006). Case Law in Mexico 1861-1919: The Work of Ignacio Luis Vallarta. In W. H. Bryson & S. Dauchy (Eds.), Ratio decidendi. Guiding principles of Judicial Decisions. Berlin: Duncker & Humboldt.
  186. Mishler, W., & Sheehan, R. S. (1993). The Supreme Court as a Countermajoritarian Institution? The Impact of Public Opinion on Supreme Court Decisions (Vol. 87, pp. 87-101): American Political Science Association.
  187. Mohr, J. C. (1978). Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of National Policy, 1800-1900: Oxford University Press.
  188. Moraski, B. J., & Shipan, C. (1999). The Politics of Supreme Court Nominations: A Theory of Institutional Constraints and Choices. American Journal of Political Science, 43(4).
  189. Murphy, W. F. (1973). Elements of judicial strategy (Vol. 551): University of Chicago Press.
  190. Nacif, B. (2005). Congress Proposes and the President Disposes: The New Relationship between the Executive and Legislative Branches in Mexico. In A. Peschard & S. Rioff (Eds.), Mexican Governance: From Single-Party Rule to Divided Government.
  191. Navia, P., & Rios-Figueroa, J. (2005). The Constitutional Adjudication Mosaic of Latin America (Vol. 38, pp. 189-217).
  192. Newell, J. L. (2005). Americanization and the judicialization of Italian politics. Journal of Modern Italian Studies, 10(1), 27-42.
  193. O'Donnell, G. (1998). Horizontal Accountability in New Democracies. Journal of Democracy, 9(3), 112-126.
  194. O'Donnell, G. (2004). Why the Rule of Law Matters. Journal of Democracy, 14(4), 32-46.
  195. O'Donnell, G., Schmitter, P. C., & Whitehead, L. (1986). Transitions from authoritarian rule: comparative perspectives (Vol. 3): Johns Hopkins University Press.
  196. Olsen, W. (2004). Triangulation in social research: qualitative and quantitative methods can really be mixed. Developments in sociology, 20, 103-118.
  197. Owens, R. J. (2010). The separation of powers and Supreme Court agenda setting. American Journal of Political Science, 54(2), 412-427.
  198. Page, E. C. (2008). The origins of policy. In M. Moran, M. Rein & R. E. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  199. Pantoja, D. (2005). El Supremo Poder Conservador y el diseño institucional en las primeras constituciones mexicanas. Mexico City: El Colegio de Mexico.
  200. Peters, B. G. (2011). Institutional theory in political science: the new institutionalism. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.
  201. Posner, R. A. (1993). The problems of jurisprudence: Harvard University Press.
  202. Prillaman, W. C. (2000). The judiciary and democratic decay in Latin America : declining confidence in the rule of law. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.
  203. Pritchett, C. H. (1948). The Roosvelt Court: A study in Judicial Politics and Values, 1937-1947. Chicago: Quadrangle Books.
  204. Przeworski, A., Alvarez, M. E., Cheibub, J. A., & Limongi, F. (2000). Democracy and development : political institutions and material well-being in the world, 1950-1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  205. Puig, S. (2007). NAFTA, Authority and Political Behavior: The Case of Mexico. Santa Clara J. Int'l L., 5, 363.
  206. Rabasa, E. O. (2000). Historia de las constituciones mexicanas: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico.
  207. Rahman, A., Katzive, L., & Henshaw, S. K. (1998). A Global Review of Laws on Induced Abortion, 1985-1997. International Family Planning Perspectives, 24(2), 56-64.
  208. Rios Figueroa, J. (2007). Fragmentation of Power and the Emergence of an Effective Judiciary in Mexico. Latin American Politics and Society, 40(1), 31-57.
  209. Rios Figueroa, J. (2006). Judicial Independence: Definition, Measurement, and Its Effects on Corruption. (Doctor of Philosophy), New York University, New York.
  210. Rios Figueroa, J., & Taylor, M. M. (2006). Institutional Determinats of the Judicialisation of Policy in Brazil and Mexico. Journal of Latin American Studies, 38(4), 739-766.
  211. Rios Figueroa, J. & Staton J. (2008). Unpacking the Rule of Law. A Review of Judicial Independence Measures. The Committee on Concepts and Methods, International Political Science Association IPSA, Working Paper # 21, September.
  212. Roach, K. (2006). Dialogue or defiance: Legislative reversals of Supreme Court decisions in Canada and the United States. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 4(2), 347-370. doi: 10.1093/icon/mol008
  213. Rodriguez-Raga, J. C. (2011). Strategic Deference in the Colombian Constitutional Court, 1992–2006. Courts in Latin America, 81.
  214. Rodriguez, C. A., Garcia Villegas, M., & Uprimny, R. (2003). Justice and Society in Colombia: A Sociological Analysis of Colombian Courts. In E. G. Jensen & T. C. Heller (Eds.), Legal culture in the age of globalization: Latin America and Latin Europe (pp. 134-183).
  215. Roldan Xopa, J. (2004). El desafuero de Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador o ¿que es la legalidad? Mexico City: Huber.
  216. Rosas, G., & Langston, J. (2011). Gubernatorial Effects on the Voting Behavior of National Legislators. Journal of Politics, 73(2), 477-93.
  217. Rosenberg, G. N. (2008). The hollow hope: Can courts bring about social change? : University of Chicago Press.
  218. Saavedra, C. (2006). Las expropiaciones federales de suelo urbano en Mexico 1968-2004. Mexico City.
  219. SCJN. (2011a). IUS. Jurisprudencias y Tesis Aisladas. from Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nacion SCJN. (2011b). Ministros de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nacion 1917-2004. Semblanzas IUS 2007: Jurisprudencias y Tesis Aisladas Junio 1917-Junio 2007
  220. SCJN. (2012). @lex. Portal de Estadistica Judicial from Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nacion. http://www2.scjn.gob.mx/alex/
  221. Scribner, D. (2010). The Judicialization of (Separation of Powers) Politics: Lessons from Chile. Journal of Politics in Latin America, 2(3), 71-97.
  222. Schor, M. (2009). An essay on the emergence of constitutional courts: The cases of Mexico and Colombia. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 16(1), 173-194.
  223. Schubert, G. A., & Shapiro, M. M. (1974). Judicial policy making: The political role of the courts: Scott, Foresman Glenview, IL.
  224. Schwarz, C. (1972). Judges Under the Shadow: Judicial Independence in the United States and Mexico. CaliforniaWestern International Law Journal, 3.
  225. Seawright, J., & Gerring, J. (2008). Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options. Political Research Quarterly, 61(2), 294-308.
  226. Sedgh, G., Singh, S., Shah, I. H., Åhman, E., Henshaw, S. K., & Bankole, A. (2012). Induced abortion: incidence and trends worldwide from 1995 to 2008. The Lancet.
  227. Segal, J. A., & Spaeth, H. J. (1992). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
  228. Segal, J. A., & Spaeth, H. J. (2002). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model revisited: Cambridge University Press.
  229. Segal, J. A., Spaeth, H. J., & Benesh, S. C. (2005). The Supreme Court in the American legal system. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  230. Segal, P. (2012). Fiscal Policy and Natural Resource Entitlements: Who Benefits from Mexican Oil? Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, Working Paper WPM, 46.
  231. SEGOB. (2012). Sistema de Informacion Legislativa.
  232. Shapiro, M. (1972). Toward a Theory of" Stare Decisis". The Journal of Legal Studies, 1(1), 125-134.
  233. Shapiro, M. (2002). The Success of Judicial Review and Democracy. In M. Shapiro & A. Stone Sweet (Eds.), On Law, Politics and Judicialization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  234. Shipan, C. R. (2000). The Legislative Design of Judicial Review: A Formal Analysis. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 12(3), 269-304. doi: 10.1177/0951692800012003002
  235. Sieder, R. (2007). The judiciary and indigenous rights in Guatemala. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 5(2), 211-241.
  236. Sieder, R., Schjolden, L., & Angell, A. (2005). The judicialization of politics in Latin America: Palgrave Macmillan New York and Houndsmills.
  237. Siegel, R. B. (2012). Dignity and sexuality: Claims on dignity in transnational debates over abortion and same-sex marriage. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 10(2), 355-379.
  238. Singh, S., Wulf, D., Hussain, R., Bankole, A., & Sedgh, G. (2009). Abortion worldwide: a decade of uneven progress: Guttmacher Institute.
  239. Smith, J. L. (2005). Congress Opens the Courthouse Doors: Statutory Changes to Judicial Review under the Clean Air Act. Political Research Quarterly, 58(1), 139-149.
  240. Smith, R. M. (1988). Political Jurisprudence, The "New Institutionalism," and the Future of Public Law. The American Political Science Review, 82(1), 89-108.
  241. Smithey, S. I., & Ishiyama, J. (2002). Judicial activism in post-communist politics. Law and Society Review, 719-742.
  242. Somin, I. (2008). Limits of Backlash: Assessing the Political Response to Kelo, The. Minn. L. Rev., 93, 2100.
  243. Sousa, D. (2010). Courts Engagement: The Different Functions of the Judiciary in Policymaking. In C. Scartascini, E. Stein & M. Tommasi (Eds.), How Democracy Works: Political Institutions, Actors, and Arenas in Latin American Policymaking. Washington, D.C.: Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo y Harvard University Press.
  244. Staton, J. K. (2006). Constitutional Review and the Selective Promotion of Case Results. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 98-112.
  245. Stone Sweet, A. (2000). Governing with judges : constitutional politics in Europe. New York: Oxford University Press.
  246. Stone Sweet, A. (2002). Judicialization and the Construction of Governance. In A. Stone Sweet & M. Shapiro (Eds.), On Law, Politics and Judicialization (pp. 55-89). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  247. Stone Sweet, A. (2007). The politics of constitutional review in France and Europe. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 5(1), 69-92.
  248. Stone Sweet, A., & Brunell, T. L. (1998). Constructing a Supranational Constitution: Dispute Resolution and Governance in the European Community. The American Political Science Review, 92(1), 63-81.
  249. Taracena, R. (2002). Social actors and discourse on abortion in the Mexican press: the Paulina case. Reproductive Health Matters, 10(19), 103-110.
  250. Tarr, G. A. (2009). Judicial process and judicial policymaking: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
  251. Tarrow, S. (1995). Bridging the quantitative-qualitative divide in political science (Vol. 89, pp. 471-474): JSTOR.
  252. Tate, C. N., & Vallinder, T. (1995). The global expansion of judicial power. New York: New York University Press.
  253. Taylor, M. M. (2008). Judging policy : courts and policy reform in democratic Brazil. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
  254. ten Kate, J., & van Koppen, P. J. (1994). Judicialization of Politics in the Netherlands: Towards a Form of Judicial Review. International Political Science Review / Revue internationale de science politique, 15(2), 143-151.
  255. Thompson, D., & Wachtell, M. (2009). An Empirical Analysis of Supreme Court Certiorari Petition Procedures: The Call for Response and the Call for the Views of the Solicitor General. George Mason Law Review, 16(2).
  256. Tushnet, M. V. (2005). Critical legal theory. The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory, 80-89.
  257. Undurraga, V., & Cook, R. (2010). Constitutional incorporation of international and comparative human rights law: the Colombian Constitutional Court Decision C-355/2006.
  258. Ungar, M. (2002). Elusive reform : democracy and the rule of law in Latin America. Boulder, Co., London: Lynne Rienner.
  259. Uprimny, R., & Garcia Villegas, M. (2004). Corte Constitucional y emancipacion social en Colombia. Bogota: Norma.
  260. Vallinder, T. (1994). The Judicialization of Politics. A World-Wide Phenomenon: Introduction. International Political Science Review / Revue internationale de science politique, 15(2), 91-99.
  261. Vanberg, G. (1998). Abstract Judicial Review, Legislative Bargaining, and Policy Compromise. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 10(3), 299-326. doi: 10.1177/0951692898010003005
  262. Varley, A. (1998). The political uses of illegality: evidence from urban Mexico. In E. Fernandes & A. Varley (Eds.), Illegal Cities: Law and Urban Change in Developing Countries. London: Zed Books.
  263. Warman, A. (2001). El Campo Mexicano en el Siglo XX. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Economica.
  264. Weingast, B. (2009). Second generation fiscal federalism: The implications of fiscal incentives. Journal of Urban Economics, 65(3), 279-293.
  265. Weldon, J. (1997). The Political Sources of Presidencialismo in Mexico. In S. Mainwaring & M. Shugart (Eds.), Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  266. Whittington, K. E. (2000). Once More Unto the Breach: PostBehavioralist Approaches to Judicial Politics. Law & Social Inquiry, 25(2), 601-634.
  267. Whittington, K. E. (2005). Interpose Your Friendly Hand: Political Supports for the Exercise of Judicial Review by the United States Supreme Court. American Political Science Review, 99(04), 583-596. doi: doi:10.1017/S0003055405051890
  268. Whittington, K. E. (2009). Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy: The Presidency, the Supreme Court, and Constitutional Leadership in US History: Princeton University Press.
  269. Wooldridge, J. M. (2001). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data: MIT press.
  270. Zamora, S., & Cossio Diaz, J. R. (2006). Mexican constitutionalism after presidencialismo. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 4(2), 411- 437.
  271. Zamora, S., Cossio Diaz, J. R., Pereznieto, L., Roldan-Xopa, J., & Lopez, D. (2004). Mexican law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  272. Zorn, C. J. W. (2001). Generalized estimating equation models for correlated data: A review with applications. American Journal of Political Science, 470-490.