Judicial Transformations In Ecuador: The Balance Of Power Seen Through The Analysis Of Social Networks
Abstract
This text explores the balance of powers in the Republic of Ecuador through Social Network Analysis (SNA). It argues that formal and informal ties among political system’s actors can be affected as a result of an improvement action within a part of the State. The Article recounts three essential elements: the theoretical apparatus of the balance of power in the State, a summary of the reform actions in the Ecuadorian juridical system, and an analytical contrast between governance models of the Ecuadorian State after the reform of the judiciary, conducted between 2010 and 2014. For this purpose, a comparison of the models of balance by using social network analysis is proposed; thereof a series of statistics that will show the possibility of changes in the capabilities of horizontal accountability of the Judiciary are obtained. This data show an evidence base that small changes in the fabric of government relations have extensive quantitative consequences on the balance of powers, and appear as heuristics of change in the dynamics of political power. It concludes indicating that reforms of the judicial system have created a more efficient system but, according to the obtained data, centrality of power can generate unwanted effects in public administration and in the structure of power control of the State.
Downloads
References
Escobar, C. (enero-febrero 2006). Acerca del aborto: Tragedia y farsa en un solo acto. Revista Javeriana, 7, 415-416.
Alarcón Requejo, G. (2007). Estado de Derecho, derechos humanos y de-mocracia. Pautas para la racionalidad jurídico-política desde Elías Díaz. Madrid: Dykinson.
Alcantara, M., García Montero, M. & Sánchez López, F. (2005). Funciones, procedimientos y escenarios: un análisis del Poder Legislativo en América Latina. Salamanca: Ediciones Usal.
Arias Núñez, M.F. (2015). Liderazgo presidencial en el mundo y en Lati-noamérica: nuevos elementos de análisis. Questión, 16-28.
Ávila Santamaría, R. (2011). El neoconstitucionalismo transformador. Quito, Ecuador: Universidad Andina Simón Bolivar.
Basabe Serrano, S. (2011). Jueces sin toga: políticas judiciales y toma de decisiones en el Tribunal Constitucional del Ecuador (1999-2007). Quito: Flacso-Sede Ecuador.
Bastian, M., Heymann, S. & Jacomy, M- (2009). Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. Proceedings of the Third International ICWSM Conference. San Jose, Califor-nia: The AAAI Press, Menlo Park, California.
Biebesheimer, C. & Mejía, F. (2000). Justice beyond our borders: judicial reforms for Latin America and the Caribbean. New York: Inter-American Development Bank.
Bobbio, N. (2005). Teoría general de la política. Madrid: Trotta.
Bovero, M. (2008). Qué no es decidible: cinco regiones del coto vedado. Doxa, Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho, 31, 217-225.
Brennan, G. & Hamlin, A. (1994). A Revisionist View of the Separation of Powers. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 6(3), 345-368.
Bustamante, F. (1997). ¿Qué democracia? : una aproximación a los pro-blemas de la gobernabilidad y la democracia en el Ecuador de fin del Milenio (Tema Central). Ecuador Debate, 42, 53-64.
Carrington, P. & Scott, J. (2011). Introduction. The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis. Londres: Sage, 1-9.
Conaghan, C. (2015). Surveil and Sanction: The Return of the State and Societal Regulation in Ecuador. European Review of Latin Ameri-can and Caribbean Studies, 98, 7-27.
Correa Delgado, R. (19-VI-2013). Discurso Inaugural. Cumbre Para un Periodismo Responsable en los nuevos Tiempos. Guayaquil. Re-cuperado de http://www.presidencia.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/06/2013-06-19-LA-INFORMACI%C3%93N-COMO-DERECHO-Y-LOS-MEDIOS-COMO-PODER1.doc (recuperado el el 17-X-2015).
De la Torre, C. (2013). El populismo latinoamericano, entre la democrati-zación y el autoritarismo. Nueva Sociedad, 247, 3-17.
De Tocqueville, A. (2007). La Democracia en América. Madrid: Akal.
Duverger, M. (1952). Los regímenes políticos. Barcelona: Salvat.
Escorsa, P. (2007). Ecuador clama por un cambio. El Ciervo, 26-27.
Ferrajoli, L. (1999). Jueces y política. Derechos y libertades: Revista del Instituto Bartolomé de las Casas, 4(7), 63-80.
Ferrajoli, L. (2004). Derechos Y garantías: La ley del más débil. Madrid: Trotta.
Ferrajoli, L. (2008). La esfera de lo indecidible y la división de poderes. Revista del Centro de Estudios Constitucionales, 6(1), 337-343.
Finkel, J. (2008) Judicial reform as political insurance. Notre Dame: Uni-versity of Notre Dame.
Garzón Valdes, E. (1993). Derecho, ética y política. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Constitucionales.
Hammergren, L. (2008). Twenty-Five Years of Latin American Judicial Reforms: Achievements, Disappointments, and Emerging
Issues. The Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Rela-tions, 9(1), 89-104.
Katz, D. M. & Stafford, D. K. (2010). Hustle and Flow: A Social Network Analysis of the American Federal Judiciary. Ohio State Law Journal, vol. 71(3), 458-507.
Locke, J. (1990). Segundo tratado sobre el gobierno civil. [Second Trea-tise on Civil Government]. Madrid: Alianza.
Madison, J. (1778). The Federalist Papers: No. 47. The Particular Struc-ture of the New Government and the Distribution of Power
Among Its Different Parts. (Y. L. School, Ed.). The Avalon Pro-ject: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed47.asp (recu-perado el 9-IV-2015).
Montesquieu, C.L. (1997). Del espíritu de las leyes. México, D.F.: Porrúa.
Nino, C. (1992). Fundamentos de derecho constitucional. Buenos Aires: Astrea.
Nohlen, D. (2008). Conceptos y contexto. En torno al desarrollo de la com-paración en la Ciencia Política. WP, 265, 1-40. Barcelona: Institut de Ciències Polítiques i Socials.
O’Donnell, G. (1992). Revisando la democracia delegativa. Novos Estudios CEBRAP, 31, 25-40.
O’Donnell, G. (1998). Accountability horizontal. Estudios Políticos, 19(9-12), 9-46.
Paez, A. (2013). La metida de mano en la justicia. Quito, Ecuador: Paradiso Ed.
Pásara, L. (2012). International support for judicial reform in Latin Ameri-ca: worthwhile or worthless? Obtenido de Latin American Pro-gram, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars:
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Jutice%20Reform%20in%20LATA M.pdf (recuperado el 02-I-2015).
Pásara, L. (2014). Independencia judicial en la reforma de la justicia ecua-toriana. Quito, Ecuador: Fundación para el Debido Proceso; Cen-tro de Estudios de Derecho, Justicia y Sociedad.
Sader, E. (2008). Refundar el Estado, Posneoliberalismo en América Lati-na. Buenos Aires: Instituto de Estudios y Formación de la CTA.
Sánchez Agesta, L. (1989). División de poderes y poder de autoridad del Derecho. Revista española de derecho constitucional, 25(9), 9-15.
Senplades (2009): Plan nacional del Buen Vivir 2009-2013: Construyendo un Estado Plurinaiconal e Intercultural. Quito, Pichincha: Sen-plades.
Senplades (2013) Plan Nacional de Desarrollo / Plan Nacional del Buen Vivir 2013-2017. Quito, Pichincha, Ecuador: Senplades.
Simmel, G. (1955). Conflict and the Web of Group Affiliations. New York: Free Press.
Sousa, M. (2007). Breve panorama de la reforma judicial en América Lati-na: objetivos, desafíos y resultados, El Estado de las
Reformas en América Latina, Lora, Eduardo (ed.), Washington: BID, 99-137.
Stallard, M. & Worthington, D. (1998). Reducing the Hindsight Bias Utiliz-ing Attorney Closing Arguments. Law and Human Behavior, 22(6), 671-683.
Sterman, J.D. (2001). System Dynamics Modeling. California Management Review, 43(4), 8-25.
Strom, K., Browne, E.C., Frendreis, J.P. & Glieber, D.W. (1988). Contending Models of Cabinet Stability. American Political Science Review, 82(3), 923-941.
Villán Durán, C. (2002). Curso de Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos. Madrid: Trotta.
Wasserman, S. & Faust, K. (2013). Análisis de redes sociales. Métodos y aplicaciones. Madrid: CIS-Centro de Investigaciones Sociológi-cas.
Zagrebelsky, G. (1997). El derecho dúctil. Madrid, España: Trotta.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors publishing in our Journal comply to the following terms:
1. Authors keep their work’s copyrights, but they guarantee Ius Humani Law Journal to be the first publisher of their papers. They grant the Journal will a Creative Commons Attribution License, under which their work can be shared with the condition that it is appropriately cited.
2. Authors are aware and accept that the Ius Humani Team will try to give the greatest diffusion to the Journal, which means, among other things, that its printed and electronic editions will be distributed among different databases and scientific indexes.
3. Authors can establish further clauses for non exclusive distribution, such as publication on a separate book or placing in an institutional data-base. Nevertheless, a note should be always added to explain that the paper was originally published in Ius Humani Law Journal.
4. We permit and encourage authors to share their work through Internet before and during the editorial process to receive further recommendations and wider references (we recommend you read the article The Effect of Open Access).
