Отвъд техническите въпроси: възвръщане на властта
Сравнителният анализ на данните, събрани от двете вълни на реформи, приети в групата държави, които са много сходни от гледна точка на тяхното конституционно наследство, ясно показват, че реалността се е развила в посока, обратна на очакваното. Всъщност външният натиск не е успял да накара местните реформи да тръгнат по един общ път. Пътят на реформите и резултатът от тях разграничават тези два процеса по специфичен начин. На второ място, общото конституционно наследство, което може да оправдае сходен подход към организацията на съдебната власт, не е натежало като водещ фактор в определянето на дневния ред.
Обяснението на отличителните и устойчивите различия, които продължават да съществуват между държавите, се намира в логиката на действията на субектите, създаващи политики. Те определят институционалния модел на съдилищата, като вземат предвид ползите от реформите, защото очакват, че всяка промяна на съдебната организация може евентуално да доведе до промяна в разпределението на властта между политическите институции.
Това доказателство ни кара да бъдем много критични относно аполитичния възглед, прогласяван от ЕС, когато става дума за конституционализъма, насърчаван в държавите, кандидати за членство. Дори оценката на цялостния конституционализъм на новите членове на ЕС да е извън обхвата на настоящия анализ (но виж по този въпрос Priban, 2002, 2007), все пак е възможно да бъдат направени някои критични коментари по отношение на последиците на предприсъединяването в областта на съдебните политики. Нашите данни показват, че предприсъединителната стратегия не е съумяла да подкопае разпределението на властта, което е съществувало в кандидатките в началото на предприсъединителните преговори. Това е проработило в точно обратната посока, защото в най-добрия случай ЕС е подсилил властта, вече придобита от съдебните институции по време на първата вълна от реформи.
Като цяло изследването потвърждава съществуването на ефект на зависимост между пътя на реформите, насочени към управлението на системата и реформите, приети в предприсъединителния период. Наистина ще се окаже, че привнесеното от Европа е навлязло в местните съдебни системи само дотолкова, доколкото то предоставя набор от възможности за овластяване на субектите, които вече са били овластени по време на първата вълна от реформи (тези приети преди 1997 г.).23 В обобщение, дори ако официалните институции са подкрепяни на техническо ниво, те все още представляват възможности за участниците да играят ролята на политически субекти. Това участие по необходимост отваря вратата към политиката.
Библиография
Ajani, G. (1996). Il modello post socialista [The post-socialist model]. Torino, Italy: Giappichelli.
Belton, R. K. (2005). Competing definitions of rule of law: Implications for practitioners. Carnegie Papers, 55, 1-38.
Boulanger, C. (2003, June). Beyond significative relationships, tolerance intervals and triadic dispute resolution: Constructing a comparative theory of judicial review in postcommunist countries. Paper presented at the Law & Society Association, Annual Conference, Pittsburgh.
Burbank, S. B., & Friedman, B. (2002). Reconsidering judicial independence. In S. Burbank & B. Friedman (Eds.), Judicial independence at the cross road. An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 9-42). London: Sage.
Burchill, R. (2005). The European Union, the international law and the promotion and protection of democracy. Oxford, UK: Hart.
Carothers, T. (1999). Aiding democracy abroad: The learning curve. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Консултативен съвет на европейските съдии (CCJE). (2001). Independence of the judiciary. Strasbourg, France: Office of Publications.
Консултативен съвет на европейските съдии (CCJE). (2007a). Council for Judiciary in a service for a society. Strasbourg, France: Office of Publications.
Консултативен съвет на европейските съдии (CCJE). (2007b). Questionnaire for 2007 CCJE opinion concerning the Council for the Judiciary: Reply submitted by the delegation of Czech Republic. Retrieved January 2008 from http://www.coe.int/t/DGHL/cooperation/ccje/default_en.asp
Консултативен съвет на европейските съдии (CCJE). (2007c). Questionnaire for 2007 CCJE Opinion concerning the Council for the Judiciary: Reply submitted by the delegation of Hungary. Retrieved January 2008 from http://www.coe.int/t/DGHL/cooperation/ccje/default_en.asp
Консултативен съвет на европейските съдии (CCJE). (2007d). Questionnaire for 2007 CCJE Opinion concerning the Council for the Judiciary: Reply submitted by the delegation of Poland. Retrieved January 2008 from http://www.coe.int/t/DGHL/cooperation/ccje/default_en.asp
Европейски комисия за ефектвиност на правосъдието (CEPEJ). (2006a). Answer to the revised scheme for evaluating judicial systems. Czech Republic. Retrieved January 2008 from http://www.coe.int/t/dg1/legalcooperation/cepej/
Европейски комисия за ефектвиност на правосъдието (CEPEJ). (2006b). Answer to the revised scheme for evaluating judicial systems. Hungary. Retrieved January 2008 from http://www.coe.int/t/dg1/legalcooperation/cepej/
Европейски комисия за ефектвиност на правосъдието (CEPEJ). (2006c). Answer to the revised scheme for evaluating judicial systems. Poland. Retrieved January 2008 from http://www.coe.int/t/dg1/legalcooperation/cepej/
Съвет на Европа (Council of Europe). (2005). Construire ensemble l’Europe du droit [Building Together a European Rule of Law]. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe Official Publishing.
David, R. (2003). Lustration laws in action: The motives and evaluation of lustration policy in the Czech Republic and Poland (1989-2001). Law and Inquiry, 3, 387-439.
Di Federico, G. (2005). Recruitment, professional evaluation career of judges and prosecutors in Europe. Bologna, Italy: Lo Scarabeo.
Dimitrov, R. S. (2003). Knowledge, power, and interests in environmental regime formation. International Studies Quarterly, 47, 123-150.
Dimitrova, A. (2002). Enlargement, institutional-building and the EU’s administrative capacity requirement. West European Politics, 25, 171-190.
Elster, J. (1996). The roundtable talks and the breakdown of communism. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Emmert, F. (2000). Administration and court reform in Central and Eastern Europe. European Law Journal, 9, 288-315.
Европейска Комисия (European Commission). (1997a). Regular report on Czech Republic’s process of accession. Brussels: Author.
Европейска Комисия (European Commission). (1997b). Regular report on Poland’s process of accession. Brussels: Author.
Европейска Комисия (European Commission). (1997c). Report on PHARE HU97/IB-JH-02. Brussels: Author. European Commission. (1998a). Regular report on Czech Republic’s process of accession. Brussels: Author.
Европейска Комисия (European Commission). (1998b). Twinning an instrument of institutional building. Brussels: Author.
Европейска Комисия (European Commission). (1998c). Regular Report on Hungary’s Process of Accession. Brussels: Author.
Европейска Комисия (European Commission). (1998d). Regular Report on Poland’s Process of Accession. Brussels: Author.
Европейска Комисия (European Commission). (1999a). Regular report on Czech Republic’s process of accession. Brussels: Author.
Европейска Комисия (European Commission). (1999b). Regular report on Hungary’s process of accession. Brussels: Author.
Европейска Комисия (European Commission). (1999c). Regular report on Poland’s process of accession. Brussels: Author.
Европейска Комисия (European Commission). (2002). Report on PHARE CZ 9810-03-01. Brussels: Author.
Fabri, M. (2005). Policies to enhance the quality of justice in Europe. In M. Fabri, J.-P. Jean, P. Langbroek, & H. Pauliat (Eds.), L’administration de la Justice en Europe. L’évaluation de sa qualité (pp. 68-83). Paris: LGDJ-Montchrestien-Gualino.
Frankowski, S. (2005) Introduction to Polish law. The Hague, the Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.
Gargarella, R., & Skaar, E. (2004). (Eds.). Democratization and the judiciary. The accountability function of courts in new democracies. London: Frank Cass.
Grabbe, H. (2001) How does Europeanization affect CEE governance? Conditionality, diffusion and diversity. Journal of European Public Policy, 8, 1013-1031.
Guarnieri, C., & Magalhles, P. C. (2006). Democratic consolidation, judicial reform and the judicialisation of politics in Southern Europe. In R. Gunther, N. Diamandouros, & D. Sotiropoulos (Eds.), Democracy and the state in the New Southern Europe (pp. 138-196). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Guarnieri, C., & Pederzoli, P. (2002). The power of judge: A study of courts and democracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Haas, P. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46, 1-35.
Ishiyama Smithey, S., & Ishiyama, J. (2000). Judicious choices: Designing courts in postcommunist politics. Communist and Post Communist Studies, 33, 163-182.
Langbroek, P. (2005). Quality management concerning judges, judgements and courts services. In M. Fabri, J.-P. Jean, P. Langbroek, & H. Pauliat (Eds.), L’administration de la Justice en Europe. L’évaluation de sa qualité (pp. 49-67). Paris: LGDJ-MontchrestienGualino.
Larkins, C. (1996). Judicial independence and democratization. A theoretical and conceptual analysis. American Journal of Comparative Law, 44, 605-630.
Linz, J., & Stepan, A. (1996). Problems of democratic transition and consolidation: Southern Europe, South America and post communist Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Magalhles, P. (1999). The politics of judicial reform in Eastern Europe. Comparative Politics, 32, 43-62.
Maitrepierre, E. (2002). Programme Phare: La formation des magistrats [The Phare programme: Judicial training] (La Documentation française, No. 1028). Paris: La Documentation Française.
Manko, R. (2005). The culture of private law in Central Europe after enlargement: A Polish perspective. European Law Journal, 11, 527-548.
Morlino, L., & Fargion, V. (2006). Europeanisation and territorial representation in Italy. West European Politics, 29, 757-783.
Morlino, L., & Magen, A. (2008). International Actors, Democratization and the Rule of Law: Anchoring Democracy? London: Routledge.
Ohlinger, T. (2003). The genesis of the Austrian model of constitutional review of legislation. Ratio Juris, 16, 206-222.
Институт Отворено общество (Open Society Institute). (2001a). Съдебна независимост. Czech Republic. Country report. Budapest: Author.
Институт Отворено общество (Open Society Institute). (2001b). Съдебна независимост. Hungary. Country report. Budapest: Author.
Институт Отворено общество (Open Society Institute). (2001c). Съдебна независимост. Poland. Country Report. Budapest: Author.
Институт Отворено общество (Open Society Institute). (2002a) Judicial capacity. Czech Republic. Country report. Budapest: Author.
Институт Отворено общество (Open Society Institute). (2002b). Judicial capacity. Hungary. Country report. Budapest: Author.
Институт Отворено общество (Open Society Institute). (2002c). Judicial capacity. Poland. Country report. Budapest: Author.
Orkeny, A., & Sheppele, K. L. (1999). Rules of law: The complexity of legality in Hungary. In M. Krygier & A. Czarnota (Eds.), The rule of law after communism (pp. 55-76). Ashgate, UK: Aldershot. Osiatynsky, V. (1986).
Roundtable in Poland. In J. Elster (Ed.), Roundtables talks and the breakdown of communism (pp. 21-68). Chicago: Chicago University Press. Ottaway, M., & Carothers T. (Eds). (2000).
Funding virtue: Aid and democracy promotion. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Papadimitriou, D., & Phinnemore, D. (2003).
Exporting Europeanisation: Exporting Europeanisation to the wider Europe: The twinning exercise and administrative reform in the candidate countries and beyond. Journal of South East European and Black Sea Studies, 3(2), 1-22. Papadimitriou, D., & Phinnemore, D. (2004).
The domestic mediation of Europeanisation: The twinning exercise and administrative reform in Romania. Journal of Common Market Studies, 42, 619-639. Piana, D. (2007).
Unpacking policy transfer, discover actor. French Politics, 3, 275-297. Pogany, I. (1993).
Constitutional reform in Central and Eastern Europe: Hungary’s transition to democracy. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 42, 332-355. Pokol, B. (2005, June).
Judicial power and democratization in Eastern Europe. Paper presented at the conference Europeanization and Democratization, Florence. Potocki, A. (2006, December).
Judicial networks in Europe. Paper presented at the conference Transnational Judicial Dialogue: Strengthening Networks and Mechanisms for Judicial Consultation and Cooperation, Cambridge, MA. Priban, J. (2002).
Judicial power vs democratic representation. In W. Sadurski (Ed.), Constitutional justice East and West (pp. 373-394). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer. Priban, J. (2007).
Legal symbolism: On law, time and European identity). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Rebuffa, G. (1990).
Costituzioni e costituzionalismi. Torino, Italy: Giappichelli. Russell, P., & O’Brien, D. (2001).
Judicial independence in new democracy: A critical perspective from around the world. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press. Sadurski, W. (2004).
Accession’s democracy dividend: The impact of the EU enlargement upon democracy in the new member states of Central and Eastern Europe. European Law Review, 10, 371-401. Schimmelfennig, F., & Sedelmeier, U. (2004).
Governance by conditionality: EU rule transfer to the candidate countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of European Public Policies, 11, 669-687. Schwartz, H. (2000).
The struggle for constitutional justice in post-communist Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Selznick, P. (1999).
Legal cultures and the rule of law. In M. Krygier & A. Czarnota (Eds.), The rule of law after communism (pp. 21-38). Ashgate, UK: Aldershot. Solyom, L. (2003).
The role of constitutional courts in the transition to democracy. International Sociology, 18, 133-161. Toharia, J. J. (1975).
Judicial independence in an authoritarian regime: The case of contemporary Spain. Law and Society Review, 9, 475-496. Verheijen, T. (1999).
Civil service systems in Central and Eastern Europe. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Сподели с приятели: |