Blog of the International Journal of Constitutional Law and

The Honduran Constitutional Chamber’s Decision Erasing Presidential Term Limits: Abusive Constitutionalism by Judiciary?

David Landau, Florida State University College of Law & Brian Sheppard, Seton Hall University School of Law

The recent decision of the Constitutional Chamber of Honduras annulling a series of constitutional and legal provisions that prohibited presidential reelection and made that prohibition unamendable was a troubling one. The same political forces that previously ousted ex-President Manuel Zelaya in 2009 for allegedly attempting to call a Constituent Assembly to alter the no-reelection rule have now found that rule an impediment, and the Chamber has been used to cast it aside. The decision is somewhat reminiscent of a 2009 one from Nicaragua, where a Supreme Court controlled by President Daniel Ortega deployed the unconstitutional constitutional amendment doctrine to strike down term limits that prevented Ortega from remaining in power.

As ex-consultants to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (on constitutional issues) that was formed in the aftermath of Zelaya’s removal, we are concerned by the continued elite manipulation of the Honduran constitution. In this post, we focus on two intertwined points: (1) the decision marks the end of a lost opportunity to achieve broader, positive reforms in the Honduran constitution, and (2) the decision uses standard tools of democratic defense like the unconstitutional constitutional amendments doctrine and international human rights law to undermine rather than safeguard the democratic order – in other words, it may be an example of abusive constitutionalism by court.[1] Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on May 6, 2015
Author:          Filed under: Developments, Uncategorized

What’s New in Comparative Public Law

–Sandeep Suresh, National Law University, Jodhpur, India

In this weekly feature, I-CONnect publishes a curated reading list of developments in comparative 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 comparative public law blogosphere.

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

Developments in Constitutional Courts

  1. Burundi’s Constitutional Court will examine the legality of President Pierre Nkurunziza’s bid for a third term.
  2. The Rajasthan High Court issues directions to curb and discourage female foeticide in the State of Rajasthan (India).
  3. The United States Supreme Court heard arguments on the legality of same-sex marriages in the matter of Obergefell v Hodges.
  4. A 5-judge bench of the Indian Supreme Court is currently hearing arguments in a matter challenging the National Judicial Appointments Commission that was recently introduced with legislative backing for the appointment of constitutional courts judges in India.
  5. The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Glossip v Gross in which the State of Oklahoma’s lethal injection protocol used for executions was challenged.

New Scholarship

  1. Alli Orr Larsen, Do Laws Have a Constitutional Shelf Life?, 94 Texas Law Review (Forthcoming) (exploring whether and how a law that was relevant and rational when written may lose its value as time and circumstances change)
  2. Richard Albert, The Unamendable Core of the United States Constitution, in Andras Koltay (ed.), Comparative Perspectives on the Fundamental Freedom of Expression (inquiring whether the United States Constitution should require the implicit unamendability of the First Amendment’s rights of democratic expression)
  3. Justice Gatuyu, The Typology of Kenyan Devolution; Upheavals of Transition, Structural Set-Up and the Muse for Certainty, SSRN Working Paper (April 1, 2015) (exploring devolution in the Kenyan Constitution and surveying the constitutional, statutory and case law on devolution)
  4. Michael Waibel, Principles of Treaty Interpretation: Developed for and Applied by National Courts?, University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 16/2015 (April 17, 2015) (analyzes the way in which national courts apply and interpret treaties and international law)
  5. Ioanna Tourkochoriti, ‘Disparate Impact’ and ‘Indirect Discrimination’: Assessing Responses to Systemic Discrimination in the U.S. and the E.U, European Journal of Human Rights (3/2015) (analysing the differences in the understanding and application of the idea of disparate impact in the U.S. and EU)
  6. Mark Elliott, Beyond the European Convention: Human Rights and the Common Law, (2015) 68 Current Legal Problems (examining the potential of the common law as a vehicle for the enforcement of human rights)
  7. Karen McAuliffe, Translating Ambiguity, Journal of Comparative Law Volume 9 No.2(2014) (showing how language plays a significant role in the reasoning used by the Court of Justice of the European Union, which has impacted the development of EU law)

In the News

  1. France could loosen its ban on gay men giving blood after the European Court of Justice ruled in favour of adopting less restrictive measures.
  2. Political parties of Thailand banned from debating the nation’s draft Constitution.
  3. Honduras is facing a constitutional crisis after the Supreme Court repealed two articles of the Constitution which banned Presidential re-election.
  4. Sierra Leone urges it political parties include in their Constitution a gender policy that will allow women to be involved in the decision making process of their parties.
  5. Non-contentious clauses in the draft Constitution of Zambia will be tabled before the Parliament for inclusion in the current Constitution in June.

Calls for Papers

  1. The Graduate School of Government and European Studies is organising a Workshop on “The Concept and Conceptions of Transnational and Global Law”. The Workshop will be held on June 18th, 2015 at Lecture Room P4, Graduate School of Government and European Studies Cankarjevo nabrežje 11, Ljubljana, Slovenia. Interested participants must register before June 10th, 2015.
  2. The Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs is currently seeking articles for publication in 2016 in a special issue on Free Speech in the Commonwealth. Articles of 4,000 words should be submitted by late 2015. For further details, contact
  3. The Harvard – US India Initiative is soliciting essays for its Essay Competition. Interested participants may submit their essays by December 15th 2015. For further details, see the notification here.
  4. The Graduate Institute’s International Law Department is hosting an International Conference on “International Law and Time” on June 12th, 2015 in Geneva, Switzerland. Interested participants may register for the conference by submitting the form given here.
  5. Turgut Ozal University School of Law and the Association for Canadian Studies are inviting scholars and policy-makers to submit paper proposals for the International Conference on International Law and Domestic Policies. The Conference will take place on 30-31 October 2015 in Ankara, Turkey.

Elsewhere on the Internet

  1. Camila Gianella-Malca and Bruce Wilson, Rainbow revolution in Latin America: The battle for recognition, Centre on Law & Social Transformation
  2. Matej Avbelj, Slovenia constitutionally reloaded, but still failing, Verfassungsblog
  3. Songkran Grachangnetara, Democracy must be built on mistrust of good people, Bangkok Post
  4. Adam Liptak and Alicia Parlapiano, Major Supreme Court Cases in 2015, The New York Times
  5. Dylan Loh Ming Hui, Hong Kong Election Reform: Will It Happen? – Analysis, Eurasia Review
Print Friendly
Published on May 4, 2015
Author:          Filed under: Developments

2015 ICON·S Conference on “Public Law in an Uncertain World”–Program and Registration

Richard Albert, Boston College Law School

The International Society of Public Law will hold its second conference at New York University School of Law on July 1-3, 2015. The conference theme is “Public Law in an Uncertain World.” This event builds on the Society’s Inaugural Conference held last year in Florence, Italy, on “Rethinking the Boundaries of Public Law and Public Space.”

The 2015 edition of the conference will feature a keynote address by Ayelet Shachar, three plenary panels, and over 70 concurrent panels. The three plenary panels are detailed below. The concurrent panels are available here.

Conference attendees are asked to confirm their attendance here by June 2, 2015. Attendees are also asked to book travel and accommodations as soon as possible.

Wednesday, July 1, 2015
New York University School of Law


Opening of the Conference: Joseph H.H. Weiler

Keynote Address: “An Uncertain World: Charting Citizenship’s New Legal Terrain”, by Ayelet Shachar

Coffee Break

1st Plenary Session: Secession and Federation
Speakers: Sujit Choudhry, Vicki Jackson, Neil Walker
Chair: Gráinne de Burca
Discussant: Sabino Cassese

Cocktail Reception

Thursday, July 2, 2015
New York University School of Law

Panels (Concurrent)

Coffee Break

Panels (Concurrent)


Panels (Concurrent)

Coffee Break

2nd Plenary Session: Public Law under Conditions of Instability
Speakers: Eyal Benvenisti, Wen Chen Chang, Pedro Salazar Ugarte
Chair: Hélène Ruiz-Fabri
Discussant: Nico Krisch

Friday, July 3, 2015
New York University School of Law

Panels (Concurrent)

Coffee Break

3rd Plenary Session: Trends and Troubles in Constitution-Making: Constitution, Revolution, and Revolutionary Constitutionalism
Speakers: Christine Bell, Stephen Gardbaum, Tom Ginsburg
Chair: Michel Rosenfeld
Discussant: Ran Hirschl

Ceremony for the 2014 I-CON Award and End of Conference

The International Society of Public Law looks forward to welcoming you to New York City in July, and invites all public law scholars, whether attending this inaugural event or not, to join the Society here.

Print Friendly
Published on May 3, 2015
Author:          Filed under: Developments

The Honduran Supreme Court Renders Inapplicable Unamendable Constitutional Provisions

–Leiv Marsteintredet, Associate Professor in Latin American Area Studies, University of Oslo; Associate Professor in Comparative Politics, University of Bergen

In a unanimous judgment on April 22, 2015,[1] the Constitutional Chamber of the Honduran Supreme Court rendered inapplicable and without effect the unamendable provisions in the 1982 Honduran Constitution. These unamendable provisions prohibit presidential re-election and make it unconstitutional, illegal, and punishable with 5-10 years of prison as well as the loss of citizenship to promote presidential re-election.[2]

In a region that today is relaxing presidential term limits,[3] the Honduran Supreme Court’s decision may not come as a surprise. Two factors, however, makes this a very interesting decision. First, the provision prohibiting presidential re-election is one of several unamendable constitutional provisions in the 1982 Constitution.[4] Second, when President Manuel Zelaya (2005-2009) attempted to reform the Constitution in 2009 through popular referendum, he was ousted on the argument that he had promoted presidential re-election, and had attempted to alter the unamendable provisions in the Constitution.

Background to Honduran Ban on Re-Election and the Unamendable Clauses

In Latin America today, Honduras is one of four countries that ban presidential re-election (the others are Mexico, Guatemala and Paraguay). This total prohibition of presidential re-election in the 1982 Constitution (article 239) dates back to the 1965 Constitution (article 193), and before this the total prohibition of presidential re-election was only present in the 1904 Constitution (in effect until 1924).[5]

In Honduras it has in fact been more common to permit nonconsecutive re-election: presidents are permitted to run for re-election but only after sitting out at least one term.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on May 2, 2015
Author:          Filed under: Developments

Mini-Symposium: Pin and Tega on Italian Constitutional Court Judgment No. 49/2015

[Editor’s Note: In this mini-symposium, Andrea Pin of the University of Padua and Diletta Tega of the University of Bologna comment on Judgment No. 49/2015 (March 26, 2015) of the Italian Constitutional Court.]

A Jurisprudence to Handle with Care: The European Court of Human Rights’ Unsettled Case Law, its Authority, and its Future, According to the Italian Constitutional Court

Andrea Pin (University of Padua)

With its recent judgment no. 49, 2015, the Italian Constitutional Court (CC) has narrowed the domestic impact of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) ever-changing case law and indirectly tried to put the brakes on the ECtHR’s evolutionary jurisprudence itself. In a nutshell, the CC is saying that the ECtHR’s interpretation of the European Convention of Human Rights (Convention) counts only when it is well settled.

The Italian Constitution commands that the domestic legislature respect the European Convention of Human Rights, and in 2007 the CC explained that the meaning of the Convention is what the ECtHR says it to be. If a piece of domestic legislation conflicts with the ECtHR’s interpretation of the Convention, it can be challenged before the CC as violating the Constitution. The CC also clarified that it will strike down the domestic piece of legislation unless the ECtHR’s relevant case law conflicts with the Italian Constitution; in this case, the CC won’t apply the ECtHR’s case law at the domestic level. Even in such a case, however, the CC never will propose an alternative interpretation of the Convention: it will accept the ECtHR’s interpretation as it is, even though it won’t let it prevail over the domestic jurisdiction.

Since the ECtHR famously understands its Convention as a “living instrument,” it never stops developing new interpretations of it, drawing from legal trends in supranational and national courts inside and outside Europe. As the ECtHR doesn’t follow any stare decisis doctrine, precedents are not firm. This means that new interpretations of the Convention can keep springing out of the ECtHR and repeatedly be used to challenge the same Italian legal provisions.

As a matter of fact, Italian courts have utilized the ECtHR’s new interpretations of the Convention to bring cases to the CC’s attention in order to have the domestic legislation quashed.

This phenomenon has become sizeable and even alarming in the context of the CC’s workload: the same legislation can be challenged multiple times in few years; and, since the CC doesn’t control its docket, it cannot clear its caseload of superfluous challenges that the ECtHR’s more recent case law on the same subject already may have supplanted.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on April 30, 2015
Author:          Filed under: Developments

The Mass Protests of March and April 2015 in Brazil: A Continuation of June 2013?

Juliano Zaiden Benvindo, University of Brasilia

Last March 15 and April 12, Brazil again became the stage of huge mass protests. Hundreds of thousands of protesters stormed many of the largest cities in the country, bringing back memories of the demonstrations of June 2013 during the FIFA Confederations Cup. The media and some experts immediately attempted to connect both events, stressing the dissatisfaction of the population with the government as their main causes as well as building a chronological timeline of events: March and April 2015 served as the consolidation of the perception – already expressed in June 2013 – that Brazil is indeed in a sort of worst-case scenario, where the political system is rotten to the core and the economy is, in the last years, falling short of expectations. It was as if June 2013 memory spurred these new protests of March and April 2015.[i] Still, the connections between both events are not that clear. If some argue that March and April 2015 “refined the criticism [already present in June 2013], associating corruption to a government and a party”[ii], in a direct reference to Dilma Roussef’s government and her Worker’s Party (PT), others might argue that the two sets of protests are structurally distinct.[iii] Beneath this debate lies two relevant questions: 1) Is Brazil facing an institutional crisis strong enough to jeopardize the democratic achievements of the last several years?; or 2) could those movements express more positive structural changes in Brazil, brought about by years of democratic life and social change? Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on April 29, 2015
Author:          Filed under: Developments

What’s New in Comparative Public Law

–Margaret Lan Xiao, Washington University in St. Louis

In this weekly feature, I-CONnect publishes a curated reading list of developments in comparative 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 comparative public law blogosphere.

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

Developments in Constitutional Courts

  1. Slovenia’s Constitutional Court has ordered a re-trial in the former Prime Minister’s graft case.
  2. In South Africa, the Judicial Service Commission has extended the deadline for Constitutional Court judge nominations.
  3. In Uganda, the Constitutional Court dismissed the case against Uganda Law Society annual general elections.
  4. The Chilean Constitutional Court upheld an electoral reform bill that would overturn a Pinochet-era version of that law.
  5. The president of Colombia’s Constitutional Court accused predecessor of corruption.
  6. Turkey’s Constitutional Court upheld the constitutionality of an obscenity law that prescribes prison terms for so-called “unnatural” porn.
  7. Kenya’s High Court ruled that the government can no longer block gay rights groups.
  8. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned a defendant’s conviction because the arresting officer violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights by prolonging a traffic stop without reasonable suspicion.

In the News

  1. Greece’s parliament adopted a decree ordering all public institutions to hand over their cash reserves to the central bank.
  2. The parliament of Bulgaria adopted a declaration on the Armenian genocide; the Canadian parliament has adopted a similar declaration.
  3. South Africa suspended parliament to enable lawmakers to spread the anti-xenophobia messages.
  4. The Mozambican parliament approved its budget for 2015.
  5. A Tunisian parliamentary committee called for a stricter intelligence oversight law.
  6. The French Supreme Court for Civil and Criminal matters (Cour de cassation) upheld its decision in Rothschild and ruled that an asymmetrical jurisdiction clause might not be enforceable in France.

New Scholarship

  1. Bosko Tripkovic, Judicial Comparativism and Legal Positivism, (2014) 5(2) Transnational Legal Theory 285–313 (exploring the relation between legal positivism and the use of foreign law in courts and arguing that even if foreign consensus were our law, this would not undermine legal positivism and, moreover, foreign law should be understood and treated as a facultative theoretical authority instead of “our law”).
  2. Neil Walker, The Jurist in a Global Age, Edinburgh School of Law Research Paper 2015/13 (exploring some of the general and enduring divisions and tensions within normal understanding of law as an academic discipline and arguing that the challenge to state-centered legal authority accompanying the intense development of transnational and global law in the contemporary age has enhanced the role of jurists as “co-producers” of authority frameworks and legal norms).
  3. Karen J. Alter, James Thuo Gathii, and Laurence L. Helfer, Backlash Against International Courts in West, East and Southern Africa: Causes and Consequences, iCourts Working Paper Series, No. 21 (discussing three credible attempts by African governments to restrict the jurisdiction of three similarly-situated sub-regional courts in response to a politically controversial rulings and explaining why variations in mobilization efforts led to different results)
  4. Eyal Benvenisti and Alon Harel, Embracing the Tension between National and International Human Rights Law: The Case for Parity, Law & Society: International & Comparative eJournal, Vol. 10, No. 77: Apr 22, 2015 (arguing that the traditional conviction that either constitutional law or international law is superior to the other is false and that scholars should embrace competition between constitutional and international norms).
  5. Carolina Arlota and Nuno M. Garoupa, Do Specialized Courts Make a Difference? Evidence from Brazilian State Supreme Courts, European Business Law Review, Forthcoming (studying specialized courts’ performance and exploring possible variations in terms of constitutional review across Brazilian state supreme courts).
  6. Martin Gelter, Centros, the Freedom of Establishment for Companies, and the Court’s Accidental Vision for Corporate Law, Fordham Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2564765 (explaining a short intellectual history of the debate of whether EU member states can effectively apply the real seat theory to companies from other Member States or take other measures to avoid the circumvention of their own laws by foreign incorporation).
  7. Melissa Crouch, Ethnic Rights and Constitutional Change: The Constitutional Recognition of Ethnic Nationalities in Myanmar/Burma, UNSW Law Research Paper No. 2015-11 (exploring the constitutional arrangement of central-local relations and its implications for the transitional regime in Myanmar and focusing on why and how the current Burma Constitution recognizes the rights of ethnic minorities compared to past constitutions).

Calls for Papers and Announcements

  1. The International Association of Constitutional Law Research Group on Constitution-Making and Constitutional Change will be hosting a Workshop on Comparative Constitutional Amendment on May 15, 2015 at Boston College.
  2. The AALS Section on Commercial and Related Consumer Law has issued a call for papers for a special program during the AALS 2016 annual meeting; the papers will be published in the Columbia Journal of Gender and Law.
  3. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem has issued a call for papers for a Global Workshop for Junior Empirical Legal Scholars to be held on December 17-18, 2015 in Jerusalem.
  4. The Siddhartha Legal Research Society has issued a call for papers for a virtual conference “Contemporary Legal Issues and Developments of Aviation and Space Industry” to be held on June 20, 2015.
  5. The University of California, Irvine School of Law has issued call for papers for the Eighth Annual Junior Faculty Federal Courts Workshop to be held on September 11-12, 2015 at the UC-Irvine School of Law.
  6. CREATe, the RCUK Centre for Copyright and New Business Models in the Creative Economy, has issued a call for papers for the 10th annual conference of the European Policy for Intellectual Property Association (EPIP Association) to be held on September 2-3, 2015 at the University of Glasgow.

Elsewhere on Blogs

  1. Deborah Gage and Jeff Elder, Kleiner Perkins Is Seeking Nearly $1 Million in Legal Fees From Ellen Pao, The Wall Street Journal Law Blog.
  2. Grace Yang, Short Work Stays In China: Work Visa Now Probably Required, China Law Blog.
  3. Jacob Gershman, Law School Applicant Pool Still Shrinking, The Wall Street Journal Law Blog.
  4. Eugene Volokh, Now there’s a court filing that’s unlikely to get granted, The Washington Post
Print Friendly
Published on April 27, 2015
Author:          Filed under: Developments

Constitutional and Quasi-Constitutional Statutes

Adam Perry, Lecturer in Law, Queen Mary University of London 

Some statutes have ‘constitutional’ or ‘quasi-constitutional’ status. What is the legal significance of a statute’s constitutional or quasi-constitutional status? The answer is different in different jurisdictions. In Britain, Canada, and some other jurisdictions, the answers are different than they once were.


Britain does not have an entrenched or fully codified constitution. Like every state, though, Britain has a set of basic rules for government. These basic rules are generated by a variety of material, including statutory material. The statutes containing such material are ‘constitutional statutes’. Examples of constitutional statutes are the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Scotland Act 1998.

The orthodox view in Britain has been that a statute’s constitutional status has no legal significance. That view has been repeatedly challenged since 2002, however. Three lines of cases are important.

One line of cases suggested that constitutional statutes should be interpreted more generously or liberally than ordinary statutes. (See Robinson v Secretary of State for Nothern Ireland.) The courts now appear to have turned their backs on that proposal, however.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on April 24, 2015
Author:          Filed under: Analysis, New Voices

Amen: The Supreme Court of Canada’s Judgment in Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay (City)

Léonid Sirota, JSD Candidate, NYU School of Law; Lecturer, Civil Law Section, University of Ottawa Faculty of Law

One week ago, on April 15, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada delivered its decision in Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay (City), 2015 SCC 16, holding that the respondent city’s practice of starting municipal council meetings with a prayer was contrary to its duty of neutrality and amounted to religious discrimination under Québec’s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (usually referred to as the Québec Charter). This decision is important in itself (indeed, it is already having an effect across Canada, with cities such as Ottawa and Calgary reconsidering and, in some cases, dropping their own prayers), but it will also have implications for other religious controversies that have affected Canada in the last few years. It is also worth contrasting with the municipal prayer decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U.S. __ (2014), delivered just under a year ago.

The Saguenay decision originated in a complaint by an atheist citizen against the City of Saguenay and its mayor, Jean Tremblay, who led the municipal council in an overtly Christian prayer at the beginning of each of its meetings. Lest his message be lost on any witness, Mr. Tremblay accompanied his prayer with the sign of the cross. After the complaint was filed, the municipal council enacted a by-law which provided for a more ecumenical prayer, similar to the one used in the Canadian House of Commons. The mayor’s gestures, however, continued as before.

The City tried to justify its prayer by appealing to tradition, to Québec’s cultural landscape and heritage, and to the reference to the “supremacy of God” in the preamble of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Abandoning the prayer would mean giving in to “radical liberalism” or, as the interveners supporting the City argued, to a takeover of the public space by atheists. The Court, however, did not agree.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on April 22, 2015
Author:          Filed under: Developments, New Voices

What’s New in Comparative Public Law

Angelique Devaux, French Licensed Attorney (Notaire)

In this weekly feature, I-CONnect publishes a curated reading list of developments in comparative 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 comparative public law blogosphere.

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

Developments in Constitutional Courts

  1. The Constitutional Court of Kosovo upheld an amendment to Kosovo Constitution approving the establishment of the New Brussels-backed tribunal.
  2. The Canadian Supreme Court ruled that the practice of prayer at city council meetings infringes on constitutional rights of non-believers.
  3. The United States Supreme Court ruled that private medical providers cannot sue a state over Medicaid funding.
  4. The Mexican Supreme Court ruled marriage ban discriminatory.
  5. Minnesota’s Supreme Court ruled that giving drugs to someone to hide is not the same as selling the drugs.
  6. Virginia’s Supreme Court ruled that a judge lacked authority to order a website to reveal information.
  7. The Irish Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained in criminal cases in breach of constitutional principles need not necessarily be excluded at trial.

In the News

  1. Malawi enacted the Marriage, Divorce and Family Relations Act of 2015.
  2. The Thai Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC) announced the completion of the first draft of a potential constitutional charter and its submission to an advisory council for review.
  3. A French court allows women to adopt a same-sex spouse’s children born in foreign countries through artificial insemination.
  4. The Chile president signed a same-sex civil union law.
  5. France started to discuss the new surveillance bill.
  6. The Tennessee governor signed legislation providing additional employment protections for handgun owners. 

New Scholarship

  1. Shawn Marie Boyne, A Closer Look at Discretion: The Prosecution of Serious Economic Crimes, The German Prosecution Service: Guardians of the Law?, Springer, Forthcoming, (examining the prosecution of serious economic crimes and arguing that economic crimes prosecutors possess wide latitude in how they choose to investigate and prosecute economic crimes)
  2. Christopher McCrudden, Transnational Culture Wars, I.CON International Journal of Constitutional Law, Forthcoming, (studying how transnational culture wars are conducted in courts)
  3. Sherally Munshi, ‘You Will See My Family Became so American': Towards a Minor Comparativism, American Journal of Comparative Law, 2015, Forthcoming, (examining the role that laws regulating citizenship, immigration, and naturalization in the United States have played in constructing the appearance of racial difference, in turn, naturalizing whiteness as the embodiment of citizenship by focusing in particular on the experience of Indian immigrants to the United States in the early twentieth century)
  4. Antoni Abat i Ninet, Constitutional Crowdsourcing to reconcile Demos and Aristos, To the people who inhabit Iceland, (analysing the Icelandic experience from a critical perspective identifying the elements that ended with the crowdsourced constitution and aiming to provide different elements to improve the constitutional crowdsourcing experiment to be considered in future constituent processes around the world based on the Icelandic experience, by simulating a judgment for a formal perspective)
  5. Mohamed H. Farel, Religious Law, Family Law and Arbitration: Shari’a and Halakha in America, Chicago-Kent Law Review, Vol. 90, No.1, 2015, (discussing how private arbitration as a forum in which family law disputes could be settled according to the principles of Islamic law are reviewed by a public court for conformity with public policy in America)
  6. Maurice Oduor, The Status of International Law in Kenya, Africa Nazarene University Law Journal, Vol. 2, pp. 97-125 (2014) (highlighting the fact that although the Kenya Constitution of 2010 recognizes international law, it fails to create a rank that can be used to resolve conflicts between local legislation and a rule of international law, and thus, if uncertainty is to be removed, a constitutional amendment is necessary) 

Calls for Papers 

  1. The California International Law Journal invites submissions of articles for publication for its next Volume XXIII (August 2015).
  2. The European Law Journal calls for papers for its 2016 special issue.
  3. Association Française pour les Nations Unies Aix-en-Provence calls for papers for its Volume 38 – Human rights 2.0: What protection in the digital age?
  4. The International Economic Law Interest Group of the European Society of International Law has issued a call for papers for a workshop to be held on September 9, 2015, in Oslo, preceding the ESIL Annual Conference.
  5. The Maritime Safety and Security Law Journal calls for papers for its issue 1, June 2015.
  6. The Association of American Law Schools, Section on Legal Writing, Reasoning and Research calls for proposals for the 2016 AALS Annual Meeting to be held on January 6 – 10, 2016 in New York, NY.
  7. The Michigan Law Review is currently accepting submissions for its 2016 Survey of Books related to the law.
  8. The Searle Center on Law, Regulation, and Economic Growth issued a call for original research papers to be presented at the Eighth Annual Conference on Antitrust Economics and Competition Policy at Northwestern University School of Law, Chicago, Illinois, on Sept. 18 and 19, 2015.

Elsewhere on Blogs

  1. Canadian Supreme Court Finds Opening Prayer at Town Meeting Unconstitutional, Constitutional Law Prof Blog
  2. Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Needle Exchanges and the Public’s Health,
  3. Commentary: The Supreme Court and marriage for same-sex couples — Part II, SCOTUS blog
  4. Europe’s Tough Case Against Google, International New York Times, Editorial Board
  5. Linda Greenhouse, Speaking Truth to the Supreme Court, The New York Times
  6. Opinion 2/13 of the Court of Justice on Access of the EU to the ECHR – One step ahead and two steps back, European Law Blog
Print Friendly
Published on April 20, 2015
Author:          Filed under: Analysis