Blog of the International Journal of Constitutional Law and

Book Review: Andrew Roberts on Michael Hein and Anna Fruhstorfer’s “Constitutional Politics in Central and Eastern Europe: From Post-Socialist Transition to the Reform of Political Systems”

[Editor’s Note: In this installment of I•CONnect’s Book Review Series, Andrew Roberts reviews Michael Hein and Anna Fruhstorfer’s book on Constitutional Politics in Central and Eastern Europe: From Post-Socialist Transition to the Reform of Political Systems (Springer 2016)]

Andrew Roberts, Northwestern University

The fall of communism gave rise to a wave of theorizing about constitutionalism. Western experts rushed in to help advise these countries on their new constitutions and these efforts received institutional support in the form of the Venice Commission founded by the Council of Europe and the Center for the Study of Constitutionalism in Eastern Europe at the University of Chicago. Luminaries like Cass Sunstein, Jon Elster, Adam Przeworski, and Stephen Holmes were among those thinking deeply about how constitutional politics in the region should and would evolve.

Yet, by the late 1990s, this interest had peaked and attention turned to other topics. It seemed that the Western part of the region had become stable democracies while much of the post-Soviet sphere was populated by incorrigible autocracies. The days when constitutions mattered seemed to have passed.

The volume under review here makes the case that constitutional politics still matters.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on July 21, 2017
Author:          Filed under: Reviews

Special Discount–New Book–The Foundations and Traditions of Constitutional Amendment

I-CONnect is pleased to share a special 20% discount code for our readers interested in a new volume on The Foundations and Traditions of Constitutional Amendment, edited by Richard Albert, Boston College Law School, Xenophon Contiades, Panteoin University of Social and Political Sciences, and Alkmene Fotiadou, Centre for European Constitutional Law.

To order this book at the discount rate in the United States, enter code AA17 at checkout here. To order at the discount rate in the rest of the world, enter code AA17 at checkout here.

The book’s description follows below:

There is growing interest in constitutional amendment from a comparative perspective. Comparative constitutional amendment is the study of how constitutions change through formal and informal means, including alteration, revision, evolution, interpretation, replacement and revolution. The field invites scholars to draw insights about constitutional change across borders and cultures, to uncover the motivations behind constitutional change, to theorise best practices, and to identify the theoretical underpinnings of constitutional change.

This volume is designed to guide the emergence of comparative constitutional amendment as a distinct field of study in public law. Much of the recent scholarship in the field has been written by the scholars assembled in this volume. This book, like the field it hopes to shape, is not comparative alone; it is also doctrinal, historical and theoretical, and therefore offers a multiplicity of perspectives on a subject about which much remains to be written. No other book to date has covered the ground we do here.

This book aspires to be the first to cover comprehensively the new dimensions of the study of constitutional amendment, and will become a reference point for all scholars working on the subject. The volume covers all the topics where innovative work is being done, such as the notion of the people, the trend of empirical quantitative approaches to constitutional change, unamendability, sunrise clauses, constitutional referenda, reconceptualising the conventional divide between constituent and constituted powers, among other important subjects. We have designed this volume to be a dialogue that cuts through these innovative conceptualisations and highlights scholarly disagreement and, in so doing, puts ideas to the test.

The volume therefore captures the fierce ongoing debates on the relevant topics, it reveals the current trends and contested issues, and it offers a variety of arguments elaborated by prominent experts in the field. It will open the way for further dialogue.

Contributors to the volume include Richard Albert, The State of the Art in Constitutional Amendment; Yaniv Roznai, Linking Unamendability and Amendment; Zoran Oklopcic, Revolutions, Amendments and Constitutional Moments; Oran Doyle, Constraints on Constitutional Amendment Powers; Mark Tushnet, Comment on Doyle’s Constraints on Constitutional Amendment Powers; Thomas Pereira, Constituting the Amendment Power: A Framework for Comparative Amendment Law; Luisa Fernanda García López, Sieyès: The Spirit of Constitutional Democracy?; Joshua Braver, Revolutionary Reform in Venezuela: Electoral Rules and Historical Narratives in the Creation of the 1999 Constitution; Juliano Zaiden Benvindo, ‘Revolutionary Reform’ and the Seduction of Constitutionalism; Sofia Ranchordás, Constitutional Sunrise; Oran Doyle and David Kenny, Constitutional Change and Interest Group Politics: Ireland’s Children’s Rights Referendum; Xenophon Contiades and Alkmene Fotiadou, Amendment-Metrics: The Good, the Bad and the Frequently Amended Constitution; James E. Fleming, Comment on Amendment-Metrics: The Good, the Bad and the Frequently Amended Constitution; Lael K. Weis, Constituting ‘the People’: The Paradoxical Place of the Formal Amendment Procedure in Australian Constitutionalism; Kate Glover, Hard Amendment Cases in Canada; Derek O’Brien, Formal Amendment Rules and Constitutional Endurance: The Strange Case of the Commonwealth Caribbean; Jean-Philippe Derosier, The French People’s Role in Amending the Constitution: A French Constitutional Analysis from a Pure Legal Perspective, Duncan Okubasu, The Implication of Conflation of Normal and ‘Constitutional Politics’ on Constitutional Change in Africa; Jurgen Goossens, Direct Democracy and Constitutional Change in the US: Institutional Learning from State Laboratories; Xenophon Contiades and Alkmene Fotiadou, The Emergence of Comparative Constitutional Amendment as a New Discipline: Towards a Paradigm Shift.

Print Friendly
Published on July 20, 2017
Author:          Filed under: Developments

Conference Report–Symposium on “The Constitution of Canada: History, Evolution, Influence, and Reform”

Asress Gikay, Matteo Monti, and Orlando Scarcello, Scuola Universitaria Superiore Sant’Anna Pisa (SSSA)–Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy

On May 24, 2017, the Institute of Law, Politics and Development (Istituto di Diritto, Politica e Sviluppo) [DIRPOLIS] of Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies hosted a symposium on “The Constitution of Canada: History, Evolution, Influence & Reform”, on the occasion of the 150th Anniversary of Confederation and in memory of Prof. Alessandro Pizzorusso. The symposium was supported by the Canadian Embassy, the International Association of Constitutional Law and the Italian Society of European and Comparative Law.

The symposium being conceived within the setting of the Sant’Anna Legal Studies Project, was co-convened by Giuseppe Martinico (SSSA), Richard Albert (Boston College Law School), Antonia Baraggia (University of Milan), and Cristina Fasone (LUISS, Rome). Scholars from around the world gathered to discuss the historical evolution of the Canadian constitution and its interplay with national constitutional laws.

The Symposium was organized into four panels each with one discussant. Each panelist had ten minutes to present the core of his/her paper followed by comments and questions from the discussants and the participants. Susanna Mancini (University of Bologna & Johns Hopkins University) delivered a keynote address entitled “Constitutional Currents and Cross-Currents: From Canada to Europe and Back.”  

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on July 19, 2017
Author:          Filed under: Developments

Global Survey for Constitutional Law Experts on Small-c Constitutions

Adam Chilton, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School, and Mila Versteeg, Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law

We are asking ICONect readers to please take our survey on small-c constitutions! The survey asks a number of questions about the nature and sources of constitutional law in your country and will take about 10-30 minutes of your time. We will acknowledge your expertise in our forthcoming book manuscript. We are also planning to publish our findings online on a designated website, along with the list of experts (name and biographical information) that participated in the survey. We are providing some more information on the survey below, but we want to thank you in advance for your time.

Please click here to take our survey.

Let us explain why we are fielding this survey. A recent wave of comparative constitutional law scholarship, which includes work of our own, has relied on the coding of written constitutions to make claims about the social and political origins of constitutional text, their historical trajectory and the effectiveness of particular constitutional provisions. The data for these studies are commonly drawn from the Comparative Constitutions Project, but also from other datasets, such as the Versteeg dataset, which focuses on constitutional rights and a number of smaller-scale efforts by Linda Keith and Oona Hathaway.

This new wave of scholarship is not without its critics. The primary critique is that it relies on constitutional text alone and does not capture the broader body of constitutional law comprising judicial interpretations, legislation with quasi-constitutional status, unwritten conventions, and a range of other constitutional materials. In other words, it relies only on the “large-C” constitution—that is, the text of the written constitution—and not the “small-c” constitution—that is, the larger set of interpretations, conventions, and laws that surround the constitutional text and that can also be part of constitutional law. The criticism rings true especially with American constitutional scholars, as the U.S. Constitution consists of a mere 7,632 words and most of the constitutional law action is found in federal court interpretations of the text. The critique is also salient to the U.K., which famously lacks a written constitution entirely, and Israel, where almost all of the Supreme Court’s rights jurisprudence derives from a single human dignity provision in the Basic Law on Human Dignity. These experiences suggest that the coding of constitutional texts alone captures only a small part of the constitutional realities in a country.

While the criticism is less salient as applied to countries where the written constitution is more specific and more frequently amended, it does reveal an important potential shortcoming in this recent wave of scholarship. These critiques therefore raise the question: is it possible to identify and quantify the larger body of constitutional law, or the so-called “small-c” constitution, and to extend empirical constitutional studies from constitutional texts alone to constitutional law as a whole?

Through this survey, we seek to do just that. We are asking experts to answer whether a number of constitutional rights are constitutionally protected, either in the written constitution or in some other form. We further ask what the main constitutional sources for constitutional rights are; judicial interpretations, legislation with quasi-constitutional status, constitutional conventions, or some other source. We also have a few questions on whether the constitutional rights protections are actually respected in practice.

While large-C constitutions can be captured without in-depth country knowledge, we believe that systematically capturing and comparing small-c constitutions cannot be done without the help of country experts. It is our hope that, in collaboration with constitutional law experts globally, we can start answering a new set of questions; how is it that most countries protect constitutional rights; how well does the large-C Constitution capture the extent to which rights are protected; and what are the main sources of constitutional law in different countries. We thank you in advance for your participation, and cannot wait to share our findings on this forum!

Print Friendly
Published on July 17, 2017
Author:          Filed under: Developments

What’s New in Public Law

–Simon Drugda, Nagoya University Graduate School of Law (Japan)

In this weekly feature, I-CONnect publishes a curated reading list of developments in public law. “Developments” may include a selection of links to news, high court decisions, new or recent scholarly books and articles, and blog posts from around the public law blogosphere.

To submit relevant developments for our weekly feature on “What’s New in Public Law,” please email

Developments in Constitutional Courts

  1. The Constitutional Court of Kosovo approved the new war crimes tribunal (KRSJI – Kosovo Relocated Specialist Judicial Institution), established with EU funds at The Hague to prosecute crimes committed during and immediately after the 1998-99 Kosovo war.
  2. The European Court of Human Rights upheld a ban in Belgium on burqas and other full-face Islamic veils.
  3. The Constitutional Court of Georgia again overturned a ban on donation of blood by “men who have had sex with other men.”
  4. The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany decided that the provisions of the Act on Uniformity of Collective Agreements are for the most part compatible with the Basic Law.
  5. The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany found parts of loss forfeiture rules unconstitutional. The court gave the legislature a grace period until December 31, 2018, to pass a replacement provision with retroactive effect as of January 1, 2008.
  6. The Supreme Court of India ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation to probe 95 alleged fake encounter killings in Manipur that involve the army, police, and paramilitary forces of India.
  7. A judge on the High Court of Hong Kong voided the oaths of office and removed from the legislature four opposition lawmakers for improper swearing-in.
  8. The UK Supreme Court held that a gay retiree’s husband is entitled to the same pension benefits a wife would enjoy regardless of when payment into the program began.

In the News

  1. Myanmar refuses visas to UN team investigating abuse of Rohingya Muslims, after UN report said treatment of minority group could amount to ethnic cleansing.
  2. Zambian opposition party sues the Parliament for approving the state of emergency in the absence of its suspended MPs.
  3. Polish ruling Law and Justice (PiS) lawmakers submitted a draft bill that would replace all Supreme Court judges except those chosen by the Justice Minister.
  4. The leader of the junior partner in Japan’s ruling coalition urged PM Shinzo Abe to focus on regaining public trust after a slide in popularity, and said revising the pacifist constitution was not a priority for voters.
  5. An Australian senator resigns after it emerged that he holds dual citizenship with New Zealand.
  6. The United Nations called on Venezuela’s government to let people take part in an unofficial referendum on the Constitution.
  7. The Parliament of Malta voted to legalize same-sex marriage.
  8. London’s High Court of Justice ruled that the UK can continue to export arms to Saudi Arabia.
  9. The UK Parliament published the EU withdrawal bill.
  10. A constitutional amendment on compulsory land acquisition splits the Parliament in Uganda.
  11. American opposition lawmakers filed an article of impeachment against President Trump.

New Scholarship

  1. Richard Albert, Xenophon Contiades & Alkmene Fotiadou (eds), The Foundations and Traditions of Constitutional Amendment (Oxford: Hart 2017) (guiding the emergence of comparative constitutional amendment as a distinct field of study)
  2. Mohamed Abdelaal, Extreme Secularism vs. Religious Radicalism: The Case of the French Burkini, 23 ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law (2017) (critically examining the impact of the French theory of Laïcité on individual freedom and religious liberty by tracking the decisions of the Conseil d’État, and the European Court of Human Rights that ban religious symbols and attires in France and several other jurisdictions in Europe)
  3. Or Bassok, The Supreme Court at the Bar of Public Opinion Polls, 23 Constellations (2016) (tracking how the reading of The Federalist No. 78 has changed in American Supreme Court jurisprudence following the invention of public opinion polling).
  4. Imran Ahmed, ‘Strategic Constitutions’: Constitutional Change and Politics in Pakistan, South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies (2017) (arguing that constitutions can play an important role in fostering a degree of political co-operation if they are useful to the political strategies of both rulers and ruled)
  5. Todd A. Eisenstadt, A. Carl LeVan, and Tofigh Maboudi, Constituents Before Assembly: Participation, Deliberation, and Representation in the Crafting of New Constitutions (2017) (demonstrating that the level of participation in building democracy through new constitutions matters more than the content of the constitution itself)
  6. Joseph A. Seiner, The Supreme Court’s New Workplace: Procedural Rulings and Substantive Worker Rights in the United States (2017) (explaining how the US Supreme Court has undermined civil rights through procedural mechanisms and technicalities and proposing a framework for successful workplace litigation)
  7. Vincent Depaigne, Legitimacy Gap Secularism, Religion, and Culture in Comparative Constitutional Law (2017) (providing a synthetic approach to the contemporary debates on secularism and religion in a comparative study that focuses on the secular-religious dynamics in Asia and Europe)
  8. Stijn Smet and Eva Brems (eds.), When Human Rights Clash at the European Court of Human Rights (2017) (providing thorough analysis of leading Judgments of the ECtHR on human rights conflicts, including: freedom of expression versus right to reputation (defamation) and freedom of religion versus right to private life)

Calls for Papers and Announcements

  1. Católica Law Review invites submission of articles in the field of Public Law from all legal scholars (including law professors, practicing lawyers, doctoral candidates, and graduate students) for the January issue of 2018. The submission deadline is October 15, 2017.
  2. The German Section of the International Association for the Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy, in collaboration with the Faculty of Law of the University of Freiburg invite abstract submissions for six panels at its its 2018 biennial conference in Freiberug, on the theme “Hans Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law: Conceptions and Misconceptions.” Abstract submissions need be sent to by October 20, 2017.
  3. The Italian Law Journal invites submissions for its forthcoming issue (3:2, 2017) on the theme “Italian Corporate Law in the Context of a Globalized World.” The submission deadline is September 15, 2017, for non-native English speakers or September 30 for native English speakers.
  4. The Comparative Constitutional Law and Administrative Law Quarterly (CALQ) invites submissions for its next volume (3:4). The deadline for submissions is September 1, 2017.
  5. The Manchester International Law Centre at the University of Manchester invites submission for its “Democratic Governance Workshop,” to be held on November 3, 2017. The deadline for proposal submissions is August 15, 2017.
  6. The Institute for Interdisciplinary Legal Studies at the University of Lucerne invites applications for its Young Scholar Visiting Fellowship scheme for 2018. The deadline for submission of applications is November 30, 2017.

Elsewhere Online

  1. Mark Elliott, The EU (Withdrawal) Bill: Initial Thoughts, Public Law for Everyone
  2. Philipp Dann, The Global South in Comparative Constitutional Law, Verfassungsblog
  3. Peter Timmins, Australia’s commitment to open government reform, AUSPUBLAW
  4. Smaran Shetty, Making Sense of Judicial Language, Law and Other Things
  5. Gregory Gordon, A Set of International Crimes without Coherence or a Proper Name: The Origins of “Atrocity Speech Law” Opinio Juris
  6. Morgan O’Hara, The Constitution, By Hand, The New York Times
  7. Leslie Kendrick, How to defend the Constitution when the KKK comes to town, CNN
  8. Liaquat Ali Khan, Disciplining Lawyers for Harassment and Discrimination: A Time for Change, JURIST
Print Friendly
Published on July 17, 2017
Author:          Filed under: Developments

Book Review: Joe Tomlinson on Peter Cane’s “Controlling Administrative Power: An Historical Comparison”

[Editor’s Note: In this installment of I•CONnect’s Book Review Series, Joe Tomlinson reviews Peter Cane’s book on Controlling Administrative Power: An Historical Comparison (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2016)]

Joe Tomlinson, Lecturer in Public Law, University of Sheffield School of Law and Associate Fellow, Crick Centre for the Public Understanding of Politics.

The comparative study of law and administration did not keep pace with the recent journey of comparative constitutional studies from ‘a relatively obscure and exotic subject studied by a devoted few’ to ‘one of the more fashionable subjects in contemporary legal scholarship’.[1] This, of course, does not mean that there have not been important studies in the field. There were early landmark works, such as Goodnow’s 1903 study of the administrative law systems of the U.S., England, France, and Germany.[2] Since, administrative law texts that have comparative dimensions would, from time to time, appear. A very well-regarded example is Schwartz and Wade’s 1972 book on Administrative Law in Britain and the United States.[3] Notwithstanding such texts, there has been a lack of a sustained scholarly community devoted to studying the topic.  Now that seems to be changing. There is renewed interest in comparative administrative law and the signs of revival are many.[4]

One high-profile indicator is the international Public Law Conference series, first hosted in Cambridge in 2014, and again in 2016. The first conference considered the theme of Process and Substance in Public Law­. It was well attended by a diverse crowd of scholars from the common law world. The diversity of the audience and presentations made the affair, somewhat inevitably, drift towards having a comparative tone. Capitalising, the 2016 event—on the Unity of Public Law?—was a more pro-actively comparative affair. The concrete academic output from this series, thus far, has been two multi-jurisdictional works.[5] The less concrete, but even more valuable, gain has been the emergence of a biennial transnational forum for administrative lawyers—a new space where comparativism can breathe naturally. Another important indicator was a successful conference held at Yale University in 2008, organised by Professors Susan Rose-Ackerman and Peter Lindseth. The conference generated an edited volume, Comparative Administrative Law.[6] That volume spawned another conference, in 2016, which led to a second edition of the text.[7]  Beyond these two examples, there are many other signs that the field is springing back to life.[8]

It is against this backdrop that Professor Cane’s new book, Controlling Administrative Power: An Historical Comparison, is published.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on July 14, 2017
Author:          Filed under: Reviews

Call for Papers–“Constitutionalism in a Plural World”–Deadline July 23, 2017

Catarina Santos Botelho, Universidade Católica Portuguesa

The Porto Faculty of Law, Universidade Católica Portuguesa in Portugal is pleased to invite applications to attend its 2017 Conference “Constitutionalism in a Plural World”, that will take place on November 22nd and 23rd, at Porto.

Abstracts addressing the following issues (and others related to constitutionalism) are welcome:

  • history of constitutionalism, comparative constitutional law and science of public law;
  • constitutionalism beyond the state (societal constitutionalism, multilevel constitutionalism, European constitutionalism, etc.);
  • fundamental rights in the global arena;
  • intergenerational justice and rights of future generations;
  • citizenship and migrations;
  • the role of constitutional courts and the methodology for constitutional review;
  • constitutional interpretation and constitutional amendments;
  • democracy in the world society.

Younger academics, doctoral or master students, young legal professionals with an interest in scholarship are encouraged to apply. We accept two kinds of applications:

  1. In the form of an abstract of no more than 750 words,
  2. In the form of a completed paper with maximum length of 90.000 characters (spaces included). In this case, the completed paper should be sent until October 1st.

In both situations, applicants should send the abstract, along with their curriculum vitae, to by July 23rd. After review by the scientific committee, the chosen abstracts will be announced, no later than the 15th September.

Print Friendly
Published on July 12, 2017
Author:          Filed under: Developments

Special Discount for I-CONnect Readers–New Volume on “Comparative Constitutional Law in Latin America”

Richard Albert, I-CONnect Co-Editor

I-CONnect is pleased to share a special 35% discount code for our readers interested in this new volume on “Comparative Constitutional Law in Latin America,” co-edited by Rosalind Dixon, Professor of Law, University of New South Wales, Australia and Tom Ginsburg, Leo Spitz Professor of International Law, University of Chicago Law School, US.

The discount is available for this month, July 2017. Please use the code VIP35 at checkout here:

This book provides unique insights into the practice of democratic constitutionalism in one of the world’s most legally and politically dynamic regions. It combines contributions from leading Latin American and global scholars to provide ‘bottom up’ and ‘top down’ insights about the lessons to be drawn from the distinctive constitutional experiences of countries in Latin America, both in the Global South and the Global North.

Contributors: H. Alviar Garcia, C. Bernal, J.l. Colón-Ríos, J. Couso, R. Dixon, Z. Elkins, R. Gargarella, T. Ginsburg, A. Huneeus, D. Landau, J. Lemaitre, L. Lixinski, G.L. Negretto, R.A. Sanchez-Urribarri, M. Tushnet, O. Vilhena Vieira


Print Friendly
Published on July 12, 2017
Author:          Filed under: Developments

When is a Limp More than a Limp? Diagnosing Democratic Decay

Tom Gerald Daly, Fellow, Melbourne Law School; Associate Director, Edinburgh Centre for Constitutional Law

Sometimes a limp is just a limp–arising from a debilitating yet isolated injury or infection that will soon heal. However, sometimes a limp can be indicative of a degenerative disease such as multiple sclerosis. Gaining a clear diagnosis and prognosis of such systemic conditions is a serious challenge: the person affected might experience a continual worsening or multiplication of symptoms, stabilisation, or even a reversal of the condition.[1]

Diagnosing democratic decay has been occupying my mind in recent months, as I attempt to fashion analytical tools to assess a decline in the quality of democracy in states worldwide, which falls short of a democratic breakdown. As a process in flux, and with an uncertain outcome, it is not an easy task to distinguish decay from a democratic crisis punctuating democratic rule without degrading it, or changes that alter the texture of democracy, but not its inherent nature.

In writing a forthcoming book chapter[2] and papers for recent conferences worldwide[3] I have slowly fleshed out my thumbnail definition of democratic decay–incremental degradation of the structures and substance of liberal constitutional democracy–as a fuller analytical framework to discuss developments in India, Turkey, the Philippines, Poland, Venezuela, Brazil, South Africa, Hungary, and the US. My aim has been to test whether democratic decay can provide added analytical value as an organising concept, to achieve an empirically grounded, context-sensitive approach to identifying and assessing democratic decay in any given state, and to test the viability of my initial selection of country case-studies. As I sit on a flight bound for Gdańsk–where I will spend a week discussing the Polish experience with one of its leading analysts, Tomasz Koncewicz, among others–I find myself reflecting on what I have learned in recent months.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on July 12, 2017
Author:          Filed under: Analysis

Book Review: Alan Greene on Antonios Kouroutakis’s “The Constitutional Value of Sunset Clauses”

[Editor’s Note: In this installment of I•CONnect’s Book Review Series, Alan Greene reviews Antonios Kouroutakis’s book on The Constitutional Value of Sunset Clauses (Routledge 2017)]

Alan Greene, Assistant Professor, Durham Law School

Constitutions should evoke ideas of stability, inertia, and permanence. They are often an attempt to reassure and establish certainty that often emerge from the ashes of turbulent revolutions. In a fascinating new monograph, Antonios E. Kouroutakis details how the very opposite of permanent legal norms—legislation made temporary through the use of sunset clauses— have shaped these constitutional institutions and the means through which they interact with each other over time.

Temporary Legislation and Controlling the Executive

The Constitutional Value of Sunset Clauses consists of four parts: Part I is a single chapter outlining a positivist analysis of sunset clauses; Part II details an historical overview of sunset clauses; Part III analyses the institutional impact of sunset clauses; and Part IV discusses sunset clauses and the rule of law.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on July 11, 2017
Author:          Filed under: Reviews