Abstract
Judicial reform was a main component of the USA’s democracy promotion programs in Latin America. Improving the rule of law through the redesign of justice-sector institutions was considered an important condition for democratization. However, changing the rules of the game in the justice-sector does not imply judicial reform success, that is, rule transformation does not mean effective rule operation. This chapter explores the extent to which US aid affected the way justice is delivered in this region. The focus is on the reforms to the criminal procedural system at the subnational level. Through the analysis of subnational judiciaries in Mexico, it is argued that US promotion of judicial reform has had positive effects, even though several attempts were needed to achieve subnational judicial reform success.
Associate professors in the Department of Law and Sociopolitical Studies at ITESO. We want to thank Andrea Aquino Rizo for her research assistance, as well as her translation work for some parts of this article.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
US Embassy, “Fact Sheet The Merida Initiative—An Overview”, 2014. http://mexico.usembassy.gov/eng/ataglance/merida-initiative.html [accessed January 23, 2015].
- 2.
Clare Ribando Seelke, “Supporting Criminal Justice System Reform in Mexico: The U.S. Role”, Congressional Research Service, 2013, p. 12.
- 3.
Zepeda Lecuona, Guillermo, “Informe General Seguimiento del Proceso de Implementación de la Reforma Procesal Penal en México. Estados de Chihuahua, Estado de México, Morelos, Oaxaca y Zacatecas, 2007–2011”, USAID-Ceja Americas, 2012.
- 4.
CIDAC, “Hallazgos sobre los avances en la implementación del Nuevo sistema de justicia penal en México”, CIDAC/USAID, 2013.
- 5.
Ibid.
- 6.
US Senate, “Judicial and Police Reforms in Mexico: Essential Building Blocks for a Lawful Society”, 2012. http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/74912.pdf [accessed January 20, 2015].
- 7.
According to a Report of the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), funds provided by US Government for law enforcement activities were about $9 million per year (around $57 million from 2000 to 2006), while after Mérida Initiative agreement this amount increased to $400 million only for fiscal year 2008, GAO, 2010, p. 2.
- 8.
See the several cases of government authorities, both at the federal and state levels, infiltrated by organized crime: General José de Jesús Gutiérrez Rebollo, ex-Governor Jorge Carrillo Olea, or ex-Governor Mario Villanueva Madrid are remarkable examples.
- 9.
Jorge Chabat, “Drug Trafficking and US-Mexico Relation”, in Kenny, Paul and Mónica Serrano, Mexico’s Security Failure. Collapse intro Criminal Violence, Routledge, 2012.
- 10.
GAO, “Mérida Initiative. The United States Has Provided Counternarcotics and Anticrime Support but Needs Better Performance Measures. Report to Congressional Requesters”, United States Government Accountability Office, 2010.
- 11.
Deborah Weismann, “Remaking Mexico: Law Reform as a Foreign Policy”, Cardoso Law Review, Vol. 35, 2014, p. 1482.
- 12.
Department of State, “Mexico”, 2014. http://www.state.gov/j/inl/regions/westernhemisphere/219174.htm; US Senate, “Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief and Summer Jobs for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2010, and for other Purposes”, 2010. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-111srpt188/pdf/CRPT-111srpt188.pdf [accessed February 20, 2015]
- 13.
USAID, “USAID Mexico. Results 2013”, 2013. http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1862/USAID%20results%202013.pdf [accessed January 23, 2015].
- 14.
US Embassy, “U.S. Government Provides $68 Million to Mexico in Support of Criminal Justice Reform”, 2014a, p. 1. http://mexico.usembassy.gov/news-events/press/us-government-provides-68-million-to-mexico-in-support-of-criminal-justice-reform.html [accessed February 18, 2015].
- 15.
Ibid.
- 16.
GAO, 2010, p.15, Op. Cit., p.4
- 17.
In the constitutional reform published in the Official Journal of the Federation on June 18, 2008, Articles 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 fostered a protective model based on the principles of publicity, contradiction, concentration, continuity, and immediacy. However, Articles 16, 73, paragraphs XXI and XXIII, 115 paragraph VII and 123, section VII, section B, paragraph XIII strengthened a hierarchical, punitive criminal law focused on the protection of the state through the figures of preventive detention, exceptions to due process when accused of organized crime, and militarization of law enforcement offices.
- 18.
Cerna, Lucie, “The Nature of Policy Change and Implementation: A Review of Different Theoretical Approaches Analyst”, OECD, 2013. http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/The%20Nature%20of%20Policy%20Change%20and%20Implementation.pdf [accessed January 10, 2015].
- 19.
Ibid., p. 18.
- 20.
Milbrey Wallin McLaughlin, “Learning from Experience: Lessons from Policy Implementation”, Journal of Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 9. No. 2, 1987, p. 174.
- 21.
John Searle, La construcción de la realidad social, Barcelona, Paidós, 1997.
- 22.
Ibid., p. 128.
- 23.
Ibid., p. 426.
- 24.
About the concept of “internal statement” to foster the enforcement of rules see Herbert L.A Hart, The Concept of Law, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1961.
- 25.
Mexican Constitution, 1917 –last amendment 2014.
- 26.
Duce, Mauricio, “Enseñando destrezas de litigación en procesos orales en la Universidad Diego Portales: Experiencias y aprendizajes”, Cuadernos Unimetanos 15, Universidad Metropolitana, Caracas, 2008, p. 94.
- 27.
ABA, “Legal Education Reform Index for Mexico”, American Bar Association & USAID, 2011, p. 29. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/directories/roli/mexico/mexico_legal_education_reform_index_2011_en.authcheckdam.pdf [accessed March 17, 2015].
- 28.
Ibid., p. 13.
- 29.
Ibid., p. 27
- 30.
The SETEC offers an exam that certifies law professors as trainers for oral trials, criminal investigation, forensic expertise, or the use AMDR in an accusatory system.
- 31.
CIDAC, 2013, Op. Cit., p. 2.
- 32.
Ibid.
- 33.
Ibid.
- 34.
A SETEC certified professor implies that he passed an exam containing several subjects concerning the accusatorial system. He knows the new rules. Malpractice (“the system works otherwise”) and traditional beliefs, however, might persist.
- 35.
On the theory of minimal criminal law, mainly focused on minimizing violence on crimes and verdicts, as an ethical–political justification of criminal law in a democratic regime see the work of Luigi Ferrajolli, Derecho y razón. Teoría del garantismo penal, Madrid, Trotta, 2007.
- 36.
Ana Laura Magaloni, “Cuellos de botella y ventanas de oportunidad de la reforma a la educación jurídica de élite en México”, en Héctor Fix Fierro (ed.), Del gobierno de los abogados al imperio de la ley, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 2006, pp. 73–74.
- 37.
ABA, 2011, Op. Cit., p. 39.
- 38.
Kennedy, Duncan, “La educación legal como preparación para la jerarquía”, Academia. Revista sobre enseñanza del Derecho, No. 3, 2010, p. 119.
- 39.
We understand by a formalistic interpretation of the law “the decision which preferably takes into account the logical-linguistic questions, which might be called ‘formal’, and not the most attentive decision on fact (stakes or social purpose intended), or that is substantial.” The quote is from Norberto Bobbio who also explains the various meanings that the term legal formalism has, especially with reference to four problems: that of justice, law, the science of law, and legal interpretation. See Bobbio, Norberto, El problema del positivismo jurídico, México, Fontamara, 1994. About the divergent uses of the concept and the advantages that represent taking formalistic decisions see Schauer, Frederick, “Formalism”, Yale Law Journal, Vol. 97, No. 4, 1988.
- 40.
Hope, Alejandro, “El freno y el acelerador: Cómo los gobiernos estatales pueden obstaculizar o facilitar reformas estructurales”, en Índice de competitividad 2014. Las reformas y los Estados. La responsabilidad de las entidades en el éxito de los cambios estructurales, México, IMCO, 2014.
- 41.
Ana Laura Magaloni, Op. Cit., p. 18.
- 42.
J. Lee Zachary, “Wrestling with Mexican Criminal Procedure: How Law Schools in the United States and Mexico can team up to rebuild Mexico’s Criminal Trial”, Houston Journal of International Law, Vol. 33, No. 1, 2010, p. 74.
References
ANUIES, “Anuario Estadístico de Educación Superior”, 2012, online document: http://www.anuies.mx/informacion-y-servicios/informacion-estadistica-de-educacion-superior/anuario-estadistico-de-educacion-superior [accessed March 17, 2015].
CIDAC, “Hallazgos sobre los avances en la implementación del Nuevo sistema de justicia penal en México”, CIDAC/USAID, 2013.
McLaughlin, Milbrey W., “Learning from Experience: Lessons from Policy Implementation”, Journal of Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 9. No. 2, 1987, pp. 171–178.
Searle, John, La construcción de la realidad social, Barcelona, Paidós, 1997.
SETEC, “Perfilador docente”, 2015. http://www.setec.gob.mx/es/SETEC/Perfilador_Docente [accessed March 17, 2015].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Aguiar-Aguilar, A.A., Ibarra-Cárdenas, J. (2016). The Role of the US in the Promotion of Criminal Justice Reform in Mexico: The Case of Law Schools. In: Burt, S., Añorve, D. (eds) Global Perspectives on US Democratization Efforts. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58984-2_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58984-2_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-58983-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-58984-2
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)