Table 4.2
Roles Played by Judiciaries in Latin America| Country | What potential roles has the judiciary undertaken the most? | In what issue areas has the judiciary been the most active? |
|---|---|---|
| Argentina | Veto player. Limited judicial review powers and judicial independence is tempered by strategic behavior of judges. | Human rights and economic |
| Brazil | Some evidence of veto player, policy player, and impartial referee. To a lesser extent, societal representative (via Ministério Público). | Tax, pension, and land reform issues |
| Chile | Impartial referee, veto player (especially in human rights issues), and policy player. | Economic |
| Colombia | Veto player and policy player; societal representative because of the Acción Pública de Inconstitutionalidad. | Fiscal |
| Ecuador | Veto player | Fiscal and exchange rate policy |
| Mexico | Veto player and policy player | Electoral disputes and issues regarding the redefinition of federalism. Also taxation. |
| Paraguay | Until 1993, the judiciary was dependent on the executive. Since 1993, it has been somewhat autonomous but not very capable. It is to some extent a veto player. | Policies of regulatory or redistributive intent |
| Peru | The judiciary has not played effective roles in defining the national policy agenda, promoting inter-temporal cooperation, and providing checks and balances on executive power. | |
| Uruguay | The Supreme Court has limited ability to rule on the constituionality of laws. However, the Supreme Court can be an effective veto player when a bill has been approved by congress and an individual citizen has been affected by it. There is also some evidence of a policy player role. | Social and financial policies |
| Venezuela | Recently there have been constituional reforms increacing the number of supreme court justices. | |
Source: Sousa (2005). |
||