Jacqueline-Ann Chesney

The Courts as Agents of Substantive Social Change

Introduction

The courts as agents of substantive social change. Evaluates courts as agents of substantive social change. This paper analyzes activist litigation, law, politics, and society, showing how judicial influence sparks public discourse and mobilizes social reform.

Abstract

This paper evaluates the rising trend of activist litigation as a strategy to pursue social reform by considering the interactions between law, politics, and society. Specifically, this paper clarifies the nature of the judiciary and determines whether the courts can be agents of substantive social change. Firstly, this paper presents the existing debate of the courts as constrained and possessing limited powers to actualize social reforms. Subsequently, this perspective is refuted in reference to the role of the courts in the legal challenges to protect abortion rights in Mexico and Colombia. This paper posits that legislative outcomes cannot be realistically expected from the courts and should not be the only form of social change that is considered substantive. Emphasizing the power of the courts to inform the discourses of social issues leading to popular mobilization, this paper affirms the courts as agents of substantive social change. Although the courts cannot operate in a unilateral fashion, their ability to persuade the public and the government ultimately merits activist litigation as an effective avenue to pursue social reform.

Review

This paper, "The Courts as Agents of Substantive Social Change," offers a timely and critical re-evaluation of the judiciary's capacity to instigate social reform. Engaging with the long-standing debate on courts as either constrained or potent actors, the author directly confronts the assumption that legislative outcomes are the sole measure of substantive change. The core argument compellingly posits that courts serve as crucial agents of change not necessarily through direct legislative imposition, but by informing public discourse and catalyzing popular mobilization, thereby validating activist litigation as a meaningful avenue for social reform. A significant strength of this work lies in its nuanced reconceptualization of "substantive social change," moving beyond a narrow focus on direct policy creation to include the vital role of influencing societal conversations. The abstract indicates a robust methodological approach, first presenting the traditional "constrained courts" perspective before refuting it with specific empirical evidence. The choice of legal challenges concerning abortion rights in Mexico and Colombia provides a compelling and highly relevant comparative framework, offering rich case studies to illustrate how judicial action can indeed shape public opinion and prompt broader social and political responses beyond immediate legislative victories. While the abstract outlines a compelling framework, a full review would undoubtedly explore in greater depth the precise mechanisms through which courts "persuade the public and the government," and the conditions under which such persuasion successfully translates into popular mobilization. Further clarification on the interplay between judicial pronouncements, media engagement, civil society advocacy, and governmental reactions would enrich the analysis. Nonetheless, this paper promises a valuable contribution to socio-legal scholarship, offering a sophisticated and empirically grounded argument that significantly advances our understanding of judicial activism and its multifaceted impact on social change. It presents a robust and thought-provoking analysis that merits publication.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.