Jueces en tensión: la Corte Suprema argentina (2003-2023) y la Corte Constitucional colombiana (2002-2023) frente a la polarizaciónJudges under stress: The Argentine Supreme Court (2003-2023) and the Colombian Constitutional Court (2002-2023) amid po

Abstract In this article, we study how the Supreme Court of Argentina (2003-2023) and the Constitutional Court of Colombia (2002-2023) responded to periods of increasing political polarization. In each country, for each presidency, we describe the political context of the polarization, the composition of the courts, and how the courts ruled on significant cases for the executives during moments of high polarization. The evidence indicates that both courts did not align permanently or automatically with any political faction. We suggest that the mechanisms for selecting judges and the distribution of power in Congress have prevented a single force from controlling the high courts and have led to the absence of internal ideological polarization within these courts.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
International Journal of Constitutional Law
Published
2024-12-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moae076
Primary Topic
Comparative constitutional jurisprudence studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Jueces en tensión: la Corte Suprema argentina (2003-2023) y la Corte Constitucional colombiana (2002-2023) frente a la polarizaciónJudges under stress: The Argentine Supreme Court (2003-2023) and the Colombian Constitutional Court (2002-2023) amid po

Benjamín García Holgado, Sandra Botero
International Journal of Constitutional Law
Comparative constitutional jurisprudence studies
article

Jueces en tensión: la Corte Suprema argentina (2003-2023) y la Corte Constitucional colombiana (2002-2023) frente a la polarizaciónJudges under stress: The Argentine Supreme Court (2003-2023) and the Colombian Constitutional Court (2002-2023) amid po

Benjamín García Holgado, Sandra Botero
article en

Abstract

Abstract In this article, we study how the Supreme Court of Argentina (2003-2023) and the Constitutional Court of Colombia (2002-2023) responded to periods of increasing political polarization. In each country, for each presidency, we describe the political context of the polarization, the composition of the courts, and how the courts ruled on significant cases for the executives during moments of high polarization. The evidence indicates that both courts did not align permanently or automatically with any political faction. We suggest that the mechanisms for selecting judges and the distribution of power in Congress have prevented a single force from controlling the high courts and have led to the absence of internal ideological polarization within these courts.

International Journal of Constitutional LawVol. 22(5)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 63%
Comparative constitutional jurisprudence studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Jueces en tensión: la Corte Suprema argentina (2003-2023) y la Corte Constitucional colombiana (2002-2023) frente a la polarizaciónJudges under stress: The Argentine Supreme Court (2003-2023) and the Colombian Constitutional Court (2002-2023) amid po — Benjamín García Holgado, Sandra Botero · International Journal of Constitutional Law (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS