Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T22:18:20.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Strategic Legitimacy Cultivation at the Supreme Court of Canada: Quebec Secession Reference and Beyond

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 December 2010

Vuk Radmilovic
Vuk Radmilovic*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
*
Vuk Radmilovic, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, Sidney Smith Hall, Room 3018, 100 St. George Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3G3, vuk.radmilovic@utoronto.ca.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. While the last few decades have witnessed increased political significance of the Canadian Supreme Court, the Court has also managed to safeguard its institutional legitimacy as evident in the high degree of support it enjoys among the Canadian public. Indeed, how do the Supreme Court of Canada, and high courts everywhere, ensure the attainment and retention of institutional legitimacy? The paper develops an answer to this question by presenting a strategic theory of legitimacy cultivation. The theory is applied and tested in the context of the 1998Secession Reference case. The paper sheds a new light on the case, shows that patterns of judicial strategic behaviour can provide important insights into how the Supreme Court acquires institutional legitimacy and points out the significance of extending the strategic approach to the study of the Canadian Supreme Court.

Résumé. L'importance politique de la Cour suprême du Canada s'est accrue de manière notable au cours des dernières décennies. Malgré tout, la Cour a réussi à maintenir sa légitimité institutionnelle, comme en fait foi le niveau de soutien élevé pour la Cour que manifeste la population canadienne. Mais comment la Cour suprême du Canada, ainsi que les cours suprêmes ailleurs dans le monde, s'assurent-elles de développer et de maintenir leur légitimité institutionnelle? Cet article propose une réponse à cette question en présentant une théorie stratégique du développement de la légitimité. La théorie est appliquée et testée dans le contexte du Renvoi relatif à la sécession duQuébec de 1998. Cet article jette un regard différent sur cette décision en démontrant que certaines tendances dans le comportement judiciaire stratégique peuvent fournir des indices importants quant à l'acquisition de la légitimité institutionnelle. L'article souligne aussi l'importance d'étendre l'utilisation de l'approche stratégique à l'étude de la Cour suprême du Canada.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 43 , Issue 4 , December 2010 , pp. 843 - 869
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alter, Karen. 2001. Establishing the Supremacy of European Law. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Authier, Philip. 1998. “Ottawa UDI strategy a failure.” The Gazette (Montreal), February 14, A18.Google Scholar
Barsh, Russel Lawrence and Henderson, James (Sa'ke'j) Youngblood. (1999). “Marshalling the Rule of Law in Canada: Of Eels and Honour.” Constitutional Forum 11: 1–18.Google Scholar
Bauch, Hubert. 1998. “After the storm, the tempest.” The Gazette (Montreal), February 21, B1.Google Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 2006. Judges and Their Audiences. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bienvenu, Pierre. 1999–2000. “Secession by Constitutional Means.” Journal of Public Law and Policy 21: 1–66.Google Scholar
Blackwell, Tom. 2004. “Canadians Want 2-Tier Health.” National Post, June 1, A1.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Lucien. 1999. “Premier Lucien Bouchard Reflects on the Ruling.” In The Quebec Decision, ed. Schneiderman, David. Toronto: James Lorimer.Google Scholar
Bryden, Joan. 1996. “Rock asserts rules for secession move.” The Vancouver Sun (Vancouver), September 28, A5.Google Scholar
Bryden, Joan. 1998. “Get set for landmark case on legality of UDI.” The Gazette (Montreal), February 14, B1.Google Scholar
Caldeira, Gregory A. and Gibson, James L.. 1992. “The Etiology of Public Support for the Supreme Court.” American Journal of Political Science 36: 635–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calgary Herald. 2004. “Out of Step on Health.” June 7, A12.Google Scholar
Calgary Herald. 2005. “A Supreme Shot in the Arm.” June 10, A22.Google Scholar
Cameron, Jamie. 2006. “From the MVR to Chaoulli v. Quebec: The Road Not Taken and the Future of Section 7.” Supreme Court Law Review 34: 105–65.Google Scholar
Caulfield, Timothy and Ries, Nola. 2005. “Politics and Paradoxes.” In Access to Care, Access to Justice, ed. Flood, Colleen M., Roach, Kent and Sossin, Lorne. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Chambers, Gretta. 1998. “Covering the Case of the Century.” The Gazette (Montreal), February 20, B3.Google Scholar
Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 35.Google Scholar
Choudhry, Sujit. 2003. “Judicial Power and the Charter.” Book review.International Journal of Constitutional Law 1: 379–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choudhry, Sujit and Howse, Robert. 2000. “Constitutional Theory and the Quebec Secession Reference.” Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence XIII: 143–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Campbell. 1997. “Yes vote will spur talks, PM says.” The Vancouver Sun (Vancouver), December 8, A5.Google Scholar
Coyne, Andrew. 1998. “Canada has right to say no to secession.” The Gazette (Montreal), February 19, B3.Google Scholar
Dion, Stéphane. 1999. Straight Talk. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmonton Journal. 2005. “Strong Medicine from High Court for Health System.” June 10, A16.Google Scholar
Epp, Charles. 1998. The Rights Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Lee and Knight, Jack. 1998. The Choices Justices Make. Washington DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Flanagan, Tom. 2002. “Canada's Three Constitutions: Protecting, overturning, and reversing the status quo.” In The Myth of the Sacred, ed. James, Patrick, Abelson, Donald E. and Lusztig, Michael. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
Fletcher, Joseph and Howe, Paul. 2000. “Canadian Attitudes toward the Charter and the Courts in Comparative Perspective.” Choices 6: 4–29.Google Scholar
Garrett, Geoffrey, Kelemen, R. Daniel and Schulz, Heiner. 1998. “The European Court of Justice, National Governments, and Legal Integration in the European Union.” International Organization 52: 149–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaudreault-Desbiens, Jean-Francois and Panaccio, Charles-Maxime. 2005. “Chaoulli and Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.” In Access to Care, Access to Justice, ed. Flood, Colleen M., Roach, Kent and Sossin, Lorne. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Gazette. 2005. “High-Court Ruling will Improve Health Care.” June 10, A22.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L. 2008. “Challenges to the Impartiality of State Supreme Courts.” American Political Science Review 102: 59–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L., Caldeira, Gregory A. and Baird, Vanessa A.. 1998. “On the Legitimacy of National High Courts.” American Political Science Review 92: 343–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L., Caldeira, Gregory A. and Spence, Lester Kenyatta. 2003. “The Supreme Court and US Presidential Election of 2000.” British Journal of Political Science 33: 535–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Globe and Mail. 2005. “The Court's Arrogant Judgment on Medicare.” June 18, A16.Google Scholar
Hamilton, Alexander, Madison, James and Jay, John. 1788/1961. The Federalist Papers, with an introduction by C. Rossiter.New York: Mentor.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausegger, Lori and Haynie, Stacia. 2003. “Judicial Decision Making and the Use of Panels in the Canadian Supreme Court and the South African Appellate Division,” Law & Society Review 37: 635–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausegger, Lori and Riddell, Troy. 2004. “The Changing Nature of Public Support for the Supreme Court of Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 37: 23–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heard, Andrew D. 1991. “The Charter in the Supreme Court of Canada: The Importance of Which Judges Hear an Appeal.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 24: 289–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helmke, Gretchen. 2005. Courts under Constraints: Judges, Generals, and Presidents in Argentina. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hennigar, Matthew. 2007. “Why Does the Federal Government Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in Charter of Rights Cases?” Law & Society Review 41: 225–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiebert, Janet L. 2002. Charter Conflicts. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, Valerie J. 2003. Public Reactions to Supreme Court Decisions. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, Peter. 2007. Constitutional Law of Canada. 5th ed.Supp.Toronto: Carswell.Google Scholar
Hogg, Peter W., Thornton, Allison A. Bushell and Wright, Wade K. 2007. “Charter Dialogue Revisited—Or “Much Ado About Metaphors.” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 45: 1–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, James B. 2005. Governing with the Charter. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Knopff, Rainer, Baker, Dennis and LeRoy, Sylvia. 2009. “Courting Controversy: Strategic Judicial Decision Making.” In Contested Constitutionalism, ed. Kelly, James and Manfredi, Christopher. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Little, Bruce. 1998. “Quebec jitters drive dollar to fall to 65.21c in advance of Supreme Court decision.” The Globe and Mail (Toronto), August 20, B1.Google Scholar
MacCharles, Tonda. 2001. “Top court to rule on child porn case today.” Toronto Star (Toronto), January 26, 6.Google Scholar
Macpherson, Don. 1998. “Court case shines light on federal arguments.” The Gazette (Montreal), February 18, B3.Google Scholar
Manfredi, Christopher P. 2002. “Strategic Behaviour and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” In The Myth of the Sacred, ed. James, Patrick, Abelson, Donald E. and Lusztig, Michael. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
Monahan, Patrick J. 1999. “The Public Policy Role of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Secession Reference.” National Journal of Constitutional Law 11: 65–105.Google Scholar
Mondak, Jeffery J. and Smithey, Shannon I.. 1997. “The Dynamics of Public Support for the Supreme Court.” Journal of Politics 59: 1114–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, F. L. and Knopff, Rainer. 2000. The Charter Revolution and the Court Party. Toronto: Broadview Press.Google Scholar
Nanos, Nik. 2007. “Charter Values Don't Equal Canadian Values.” Policy Options 28: 50–59.Google Scholar
National Post. 2005. “The Right to Live.” June 9, A20.Google Scholar
Ostberg, C.L. and Wetstein, Matthew. 2008. Attitudinal Decision Making in the Supreme Court of Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penney, Jonathon W. 2005. “Deciding in the Heat of the Constitutional Moment.” Dalhousie Law Journal 28: 217–60.Google Scholar
Persily, Nathaniel. 2008. “Introduction.” In Public Opinion and Constitutional Controversy, ed. Persily, Nathaniel, Citrin, Jack and Egan, Patrick J.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petter, Andrew. 2005. “Wealthcare: The Politics of the Charter Re-visited.” In Access to Care, Access to Justice, ed. Flood, Coleen M., Roach, Kent and Sossin, Lorne. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 US 833 (1992).Google Scholar
Province. 2005. “Top Court Medicare Ruling should be Healthy for Patients.” June 10, A22.Google Scholar
Radmilovic, Vuk. 2010. “A Strategic Approach to Judicial Legitimacy: Supreme Court of Canada and the Marshall Case.” Review of Constitutional Studies 15 [forthcoming].Google Scholar
R. v. Malmo-Levine, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571.Google Scholar
R. v. Marshall, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 456 [Marshall 1].Google Scholar
R. v. Marshall, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 533 [Marshall 2].Google Scholar
R. v. Mills, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668.Google Scholar
R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30.Google Scholar
R. v. O'Connor, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411.Google Scholar
R. v. Sharpe, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45Google Scholar
Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217.Google Scholar
Re: Resolution to Amend the Constitution, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 753. [Patriation Reference]Google Scholar
Russell, Peter H. 1985. “The Supreme Court and the Federal-Provincial Relations: The Political Use of Legal Resources.” Canadian Public Policy 11: 161–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, Peter H. 2004. Constitutional Odyssey. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Russell, Peter H. 2005. “Chaoulli: The Political versus the Legal Life of a Judicial Decision.” In Access to Care, Access to Justice, ed. Flood, Colleen M., Roach, Kent and Sossin, Lorne. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Russell, Peter H., Knopff, R. and Morton, F.L., eds. 1990. Federalism and the Charter. Ottawa: Carleton University Press.Google Scholar
Sauvageau, Florian, Schneiderman, David and Taras, David. 2006. The Last Word. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Songer, Donald R. and Johnson, Susan W.. 2007. “Judicial Decision Making in the Supreme Court of Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 40: 911–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spiller, Pablo T. and Gely, Rafael. 2008. “Strategic Judicial Decision-Making.” In The Oxford Handbook of Law and Politics, ed. Whittington, Keith, Kelemen, Daniel and Caldeira, Gregory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Staton, Jeffrey K. 2006. “Constitutional Review and the Selective Promotion of Case Results.” American Journal of Political Science 50: 98–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toronto Star. 2005. “Medicare Ruling a Wake-Up Call.” June 10, A26.Google Scholar
Vanberg, Georg. 2005. The Politics of Constitutional Review in Germany. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Victoria Times Colonist. 2005. “Court Fails to End Health Debate.” June 10, 2005.Google Scholar
Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493.Google Scholar
Walker, William. 1998. “Difficult questions remain for the politicians to resolve.” Toronto Star (Toronto), August 21, 1.Google Scholar
Whittington, Keith E. 2001. “Taking What They Give Us: Explaining the Court's Federalism Offensive.” Duke Law Journal 51: 477–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wills, Terrance. 1998. “The Court Rules.” The Gazette (Montreal), August 21, A8.Google Scholar
Windsor Star. 2005. “Health Care: Listen to the Supreme Court.” June 10, A10.Google Scholar
Young, Robert A. 1998. “A Most Politic Judgment.” Constitutional Forum 10: 14–18.Google Scholar