Brinks and Gauri define legalization of policy not depending on courts making final all-or-nothing decisions, thereby usurping the functions of more representative institutions, instead, it recognizes the open-ended and interactive nature of judicial decision making, suggests that policy making power is not zero sum across government branches and does not smuggle in normative judgments about the proper province of courts. Argue that courts more often add a relevant actor and relevant considerations than seize decision-making power from other actors
Legalization as the participation of legal actors and the use of legal concepts in policymaking processes.
Public policy litigation legalization- the extent to which courts and lawyers become relevant actors and the language and categories of law and rights …show more content…
Due to the poorly functioning political institutions. In particular, the party system is quite weak – the system is fragmented, parties tend to have short life-spans and/or are internally fractionalized, and parties have only weak roots in society.As a result, the legislature has never been able to play a constructive policymaking role in Colombia, and presidents have unilaterally dominated the policymaking process.As I will show below, the Colombian Constitutional Court has viewed these political conditions as a warrant for becoming perhaps the most activist court in the world. The 1991 Constitutional Convention that created the Colombian Court was called because of pervasive violence and because of a sense that the country’s political institutions were failing.6 Due to the nature of the development of the Colombian Court, it is perfectly suited to illustrate the point I will try to