Legal Aspects of Impeachment in Comparison

Do impeachments act the way they act because of their actors’ intentions or because of the institutes inherent design? To answer this question, chapter four makes a comprehensive analysis of different systems of impeachment and their national interpretations. This analysis entails: (i.) coverage of legal debates about the nature of impeachments, that is, about what kind of sphere(s) of accountability it is supposed to address and accommodate; (ii.) detailed description and discussion of substantial (e.g., actus reus, mens rea, joint perpetration, vicarious liability, limitations) and formal aspects (e.g., procedural variations and surrogates, phases, standards of proof) of impeachment legislation; (iii.) judicial review; (iv.) peculiarities of the rule of law in the context of impeachments. The analysis of these elements reveals an ambiguous perception of the legal communities in Latin America in the past decades that, however, has been changing slowly with shocks given by the reality of impeachments and political crises. Trends indicate that court intervention in impeachment proceedings is becoming more accepted, and that impeachment legislation is moving towards the use of political-constitutional categories rather than criminal, civil or administrative ones. Although there is a long way for these communities to fully accept a paradigm of rule of law that can work in the realm of impeachments, the ambiguities inherent to the procedure are being accommodated by novel legislation and novel practices.