Court in an Authoritarian Regime:

DOI Web Site Web Site 5 References

Bibliographic Information

Other Title
  • 権威主義体制における裁判所 :
  • 権威主義体制における裁判所 : マレーシアにおける違憲判決と政治的自由
  • ケンイ シュギ タイセイ ニ オケル サイバンショ : マレーシア ニ オケル イケン ハンケツ ト セイジテキ ジユウ
  • Unconstitutional Rulings on Laws Restricting Political Freedom in Malaysia
  • マレーシアにおける違憲判決と政治的自由

Search this article

Abstract

<p>The Judiciary in authoritarian regimes is regarded as submissive to the Executive. However, the Malaysian court, that is typically depicted as “submissively deferential” (Neudorf 2016) to the authoritarian government, have actually ruled against the government. Why does the court in an authoritarian regime “revolt” against the government and assert its independence?</p><p>  This study focuses on the epochal unconstitutional rulings on the laws restricting political freedom in the 2010s. Previously, the Malaysian court rarely found these laws unconstitutional by confining its role to a strict literal interpretation of the Constitution. However, the Court of Appeals found three legislations –Universities and University Colleges Act; Peaceful Assembly Act and Sedition Act― as unconstitutional with the logic that the role of the court was to examine the reasonableness and proportionality of these laws.</p><p>  The series of rulings were made possible by two factors: liberal precedents on the logic of constitutional interpretation; and the judges who contribute to the accumulation of the liberal reasoning. These judges didn’t have the motivation to play a “submissively deferential” role due to the slim prospect of their promotion to the apex court or the expectation of their post-retirement opportunity as legal counsels representing the opposition whose power had recently increased.</p>

Journal

References(5)*help

See more

Related Projects

See more

Keywords

Details 詳細情報について

Report a problem

Back to top