Judicial Activism in Italy

  • Mary L. Volcansek

Abstract

Activismo’ is a term that has been attached to the judiciary in Italy only recently, and, as usually the case elsewhere, carries a pejorative connotation and lacks a coherent definition. Judicial activism, in the Italian case, generally is linked to policy-making by the judiciary, through judicial review or judicial interpretation. Critics of the judiciary point to decisions they view as undesirable as evidence of activism, while supporters of judicial policies applaud the independence displayed by judges. The task of clarifying the constitutionally acceptable limits of judicial authority is colored by the political persuasion of the observer and muddled by the different stances assumed by the various types of courts in Italy.

Keywords

Assure Tempo Alan Monopoly 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Guglielmo Negri, Il Quadro Costituzionale: Tempi e Istituti della Liberta (Milan: Giuffre Editore, 1984), p. 7.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gustavo Zagrebelsky, La Giustizia Costituzionale (Milan: D Mulino, 1988), p. 22.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Francesco Calasso, L’Unita Giuridica Dell’Europa (Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino Editore, 1985), pp. 139–63.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    Francesco Rigno, Costituzione e Potere Guidiziario (Padua: CEDAM-Casa Editrice, 1982), p. 7.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    Giuseppe Ferrari, Corso Istituzionale di Diritto Pubblico (Milan: Giuffre Editore, 1987), p. 1.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    Maria Elisabetta de Franciscis, ‘Italy,’ in Alan N. Katz (ed.), Legal Traditions and Systems: An International Handbook (New York: Greenwood Press, 1986), p. 161.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    D. Sorace, A. Orsi Battaglini, and R. Ruffilli, Diritto Pubblico (Florence: LeMonnier, 1982), p. 318.Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    Luigi Lombardi Vallauri, Corsi di Filosofia del Diritto (Padua: CEDAM, 1981), p. 595.Google Scholar
  9. 10.
    Carla Rodota, La Corte Costituzionale (Rome: Editori Riuniti, 1986), pp. 14–15.Google Scholar
  10. 12.
    Temistocle Martines, Diritto Costituzionale (Milan: Giuffre Editore, 1986), pp. 556–7.Google Scholar
  11. 13.
    Nicola di Occhiocupo, La Corte Costituzionale tra Norma Giuridica e Realta Sociale (Padua: CEDAM, 1984), pp. 518–19.Google Scholar
  12. 15.
    Ettore Laurenzano, Corte Costituzionale e Parlemento (Rome: Bulzoni Editore, 1983), pp. 5, 39.Google Scholar
  13. 16.
    V. Falzone, F. Palermo, and F. Consentino, La Costituzione della Repubblica Italiana: Illustrata con i Lavori Preparatori (Milan: Oscar Studio Mondadori, 1980), p. 428.Google Scholar
  14. 33.
    Henry W. Ehrmann, Comparative Legal Cultures (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1976), p. 77.Google Scholar
  15. 35.
    Alessandro Pace, Problematica delle Liberta Costituzionali (Padua: CEDAM, 1985), p. 79.Google Scholar
  16. 36.
    John Henry Merryman, ‘The Italian Style II: Law,’ Stanford Law Review, 18 (1966): 396–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 38.
    Fausto Cuocolo, Istituzioni di Diritto Pubblico (Milan: Giuffre Editore, 1988), p. 476Google Scholar
  18. 39.
    Maria Rosaria Ferrarese, ‘Civil Justice and the Judicial Role in Italy/ Justice System Journal 13 (1989): 168–85.Google Scholar
  19. 42.
    Giuseppe di Federico, ‘The Italian Judicial Profession and Its Bureaucratic Setting,’ Juridical Review (1976): 40–57.Google Scholar
  20. 44.
    Leopoldo Elia, ‘Relazione di Sintesi,’ in Nicola di Occhiocupo, La Corte Costituzionale tra Norma Giuridica e Realta Sociale (Padua: CEDAM, 1984), pp. 165–8.Google Scholar
  21. 45.
    Vezio Crisafulli, ‘La Corte Costituzionale ha Vent’Anni,’ in Nicola di Occhiocupo (ed.), La Corte Costituzionale tra Norma Giuridica e Realta Sociale (Padua: CEDAM, 1984), p. 72.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kenneth M. Holland 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary L. Volcansek

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations