Speaker
Description
This paper explores the judicialisation of urban planning conflicts, a phenomenon that reflects the growing distrust in traditional planning processes and their inability to resolve disputes over land use. Judicialisation involves transferring decision-making from the political-administrative realm to the courts, where judges and lawyers mediate conflicts that should ideally be resolved by planning authorities. This process is analysed through Hirschman's "exit" concept, where actors dissatisfied with the decisions of an institution (in this case, planning) turn to other decisional spaces (here, the judicial arena) as an alternative.
The paper presents a taxonomy of judicialisation, distinguishing between legal actions taken before, during, and after the implementation of planning decisions, and between those that support or oppose such decisions. It examines an emblematic case, such as the urbanisation of the protected dunes of Concón in Chile, where judicialisation has been a response to real estate pressure and the lack of effective environmental protection. This case illustrates how judicialisation can replace traditional planning, shifting conflict resolution to the courts and highlighting the limitations of planning processes in reconciling diverse interests. The analysis of the Concón dunes case reveals a long-standing conflict involving multiple actors, including municipalities, real estate companies, and citizen organisations. Over more than 30 years, the majority of key events have been linked to judicial rulings, demonstrating the courts' central role in determining land use and resolving disputes. The paper argues that judicialisation reflects a broader trend of judicialising politics, where legal expertise is mobilised to address issues that traditional planning processes fail to resolve.
Judicialisation is thus presented as an exit strategy in response to the planning system's failure to fulfil its promises of participation and conflict resolution. However, it also poses challenges, such as the potential erosion of planning authority and an over-reliance on judicial decisions. The paper concludes that while judicialisation can offer quick solutions, it does not replace the need for inclusive and deliberative planning processes that effectively address urban conflicts. Ultimately, the paper suggests that judicialisation, while providing a mechanism for conflict resolution, underscores the need for more robust and transparent planning processes. These processes should be capable of accommodating diverse viewpoints and facilitating meaningful participation, thereby reducing the reliance on judicial interventions. The paper calls for a re-evaluation of planning practices to ensure they can effectively mediate conflicts and deliver on their promises of equitable and sustainable urban development.
| Keywords | Judicialization; conflict; distrust; planning practices |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | No |
