Blog of the International Journal of Constitutional Law

The Scope and Limits of the European Arrest Warrant: The Case of Catalan Exiles

[Editor’s Note: We welcome comments in response to this post, as we do to all posts. Please contact Richard Albert and David Landau by email to submit a response for publication consideration.]

Antoni Abat i Ninet, Professor Constitutional Law, Faculty of Law – University of Copenhagen and Joan Queralt Jiménez, Professor of Criminal Law, Faculty of Law – University of Barcelona

Sixteen Catalan representatives and the leaders of two grassroots associations are currently facing severe criminal charges in Spain for organising and celebrating a referendum of self-determination of 1 October 2017. This consultation was banned by the Constitutional Court and repressed violently by the Spanish armed police.

Unlike the previous criminal charges against former Catalan representatives for organising a symbolic popular consultation on independence on 9 November 2014,[1] nine people have to this day been imprisoned for more than 175 days, in pre-trail detention and facing charges of rebellion (among others) which carries a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison, if found guilty. The pre-trail imprisonment of these political leaders and grassroots activists in undignified and inhumane conditions is unjustified in the view of many. The nine political prisoners are imprisoned in the Madrid area at 600 km from home. The policy of dispersal under which prisoners are removed from their families is in addition a punishment for the prisoner’s family and loved ones, since they are forced to undertake long and difficult journeys, involving a high risk of accidents.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on April 20, 2018
Author:          Filed under: Developments

Understanding Turkey’s Restructured System for Judicial Appointments and Promotions

Dr. Ali Dursun Ulusoy, Professor of Law at Ankara University, Former Justice of Turkish Council of State (Danistay), Visiting Scholar, UCLA Law[*]

In some countries including Turkey, a special board of judges (and prosecutors) is in charge of nationwide appointments (for everything from regional to apex courts), reshuffles, reassignments, removals and disciplinary procedures of judges (and prosecutors). Under such systems, judicial independence will depend in some measure on the structure of these boards and their methods for administering appointments.

The Turkish constitutional amendments passed by referendum in April 2017 immensely affected Turkey both legally and politically. By far the lion’s share of international attention has focused on the fact that the amendments shifted the country from a parliamentary to a presidential system. Comparatively less attention was paid to the impact of the amendments on enhancing political control over the judiciary. Following the amendments, the membership of the Board of Judges and Prosecutors (BJP)[1] is entirely designated by the political powers (the President and Parliament), greatly reducing judicial independence.

The new structure of the BJP

In the previous version of the Constitution, two-thirds of BJP members were designated by member vote of the apex courts as well as the judges and prosecutors of the first instance courts. With the new system, none of the BJP members are elected by the judiciary. Even though a majority of its members must be composed of judges and prosecutors, the members of BJP are now entirely appointed by the political authorities (the President and Parliament). In the final version of the amendment, the Parliament designates seven members, the president appoints four more, and the minister of justice as well as the undersecretary of the ministry of justice serve as permanent members (Art.159).

The members to be elected by Parliament must receive the support of at least a three-fifhts majority of that body. If this threshold cannot be met, lots will be drawn to select between the two candidates that received the most votes. This procedure is designed to avoid appointments by a simple majority; the objective is to ensure greater parliamentary consensus on the appointment of BJP members. Thus, in cases where a three-fifts majority cannot be met in Parliament, it becomes possible for some lucky opposition candidate to be appointed.[2]

In fact, the earlier procedure was also problematic. Under that process. appointments for a majority of BJP positions were made through a vote by the entire corps of judges and prosecutors. In particular, well-organized but ultimately illegitimate groups[3] were able to organize slates in the judicial elections that enabled them to manipulate the appointments and promotions processes of the judiciary through domination of the BJP.[4] The newly adopted 2017 amendments simply bypass the judicial branch entirely in determining the composition of the BJP.

Moreover, the provisions revising the structure of the BJP and judicial appointments came into effect as soon as the referendum results were announced. Whereas other provisions that were part of the referendum package would took delayed effect—not becoming operative until the change to a presidential system in 2019—the changes to the BJP were immediate. The rushed timing of the implementation of the changes to the BJP’s composition is strongly suggestive of a desire to assert full political control of the judiciary at the earliest possible date.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on April 19, 2018
Author:          Filed under: Analysis

What’s New in Public Law

–Angélique Devaux, Cheuvreux Notaires, Paris, France, Diplômée notaire, LL.M. Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law

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 Supreme Court of India ruled that the Constitution guarantees the right to dress, eat and love and that must be protected by the judiciary.
  2. The Constitutional Court of Germany ruled unconstitutional the current property tax regime because the assessment violates the fundamental right to equal treatment.
  3. The Supreme Court of Pakistan ruled on requirement for Parliament’s elections.
  4. The Trinidad and Tobago Constitutional Court ruled buggery law unconstitutional.
  5. Massachusetts’s Supreme Judicial Court refused to block Exxon climate fraud investigation.

In the News

  1. Ivory Coast inaugurated its first Senate.
  2. The Constitutional Court of Spain denied a second appeal for Jordi Sanchez, Catalan political activist.
  3. The UK government will challenge Scotland’s Brexit Bill in Supreme Court.
  4. France signed protocol number 16 to the European Convention of Human Rights thus bringing the instrument into force within the member States.
  5. The Constitutional Court of Jordan and the Supreme Court of Egypt signed a Memorandum of Understanding to enhance cooperation in accordance with the laws and regulations of the countries.

New Scholarship

  1. Three handbooks on “The Right to Liberty and Security”, “Freedom of Expression” and “Freedom of Assembly and Association” were published under the Joint Project of the European Union and the Council of Europe on “Supporting the Individual Application to the Constitutional Court in Turkey”.
  2. Elisa Arcioni, We, What People? Constitutional identity in Australia, This Century’s Review, Vol. 2, 34-36, 2017 (examining the link between constitution and the nation through the example of the Australian Constitution)
  3. John Vlahoplus, Natural Born Citizen: A Response to Thomas H. Lee, American University Law Review Forum (Forthcoming), (Responding and disputing Thomas H. Lee’s conclusion)
  4. Luke Beck, Religious Freedom and the Australian Constitution: Origins and Future, Routledge 2018, (examining the origins of Australia’s constitutional religious freedom provision) (20% discount code FLR40)
  5. Francesco Palermo, Karl Kossler, Comparative federalism, Constitutional Arrangements and Case Law, Hart Publishing 2017, (exploring the subject of federalism from the perspective of comparative constitutional law)
  6. Mark Elliott, Jack Williams, Alison L Young, The UK Constitution after Miller Brexit and Beyond, Hart Publishing 2018 (evaluating the decision in Miller, providing a detailed analysis of the reasoning in the judgment and its longer-term consequences for the UK constitution through the period of Brexit and beyond

Calls for Papers and Announcements

  1. The Centre de Droit Public Compare, University of Paris II – Pantheon-Assas will hold a seminar on Internationalization of Administrative Law (L’internationalisation du droit administratif) in Paris on May 24-26, 2018
  2. The Chinese Journal of Comparative Law (Oxford University Press) and the School of Law of Xi’an Jiaotong University call for papers for the inaugural Conference on Comparative Law: The Past, Present and Future to be held on June 9-10, 2018 in Xi’an, China.
  3. The Faculty of Law, Masaryk University in Brno, Czech Republic calls for papers for a Qualitative Research in Law Conference which will be held on October 26, 2018.
  4. The Wisconsin Law Review is seeking topic proposals for its annual symposium issue. The symposium will be held on September 28, 2018, and the call for topic proposals closes on May 5, 2018.
  5. The Australian National University‘s Centre for Law, Arts & Humanities and its Centre for Arab & Islamic Studies call for papers for a symposium entitled After the Rule: Interpretation in Comparative and Cross-Cultural Perspective to be held on Friday, September 21, 2018.

Elsewhere Online

  1. Tom Daly, An African Judicial Network: Building Community, Delivering Justice (Final Report December 2017)
  2. Maxime St-Hilaire, De nombreuses infractions pénales provinciales seraient-elles invalides? Blogue a qui de droit
  3. Koen de Winter and Michaël De Vroey, Belgium: Constitutional Court allows third-party opposition against arbitral awards,
  4. Adam Liptak, Supreme Court Rules on Terrorism, Whistle-Blowers and Prisoners, The New York Times
  5. Oday Talal Mahmood, Toward the Effective Judicial Review in Iraq,
  6. Maja Sahadzic, Constitutional Asymmetry as a tool to manage diversity, 50 shades of federalism
  7. Brian Christopher Jones, Wightman and How Not to Advance the Law, UK Constitutional Law Association Blog
  8. Ruthann Robson, District Judge Holds Transgender Military Ban Subject to Strict Scrutiny, Constitutional Prof Blog
Print Friendly
Published on April 17, 2018
Author:          Filed under: Developments

Transformative Constitutionalism in Latin America: A Dialogic Route to Utopia?

Leonardo García Jaramillo, Universidad EAFIT, Government and Political Science Department-Colombia[*]

In Latin America during the last three decades, the law (and particularly constitutional law) has been changing dramatically both anatomically and physiologically. It has become more widespread and more powerful, transforming its structure and shape, while its functions have grown in a more complex and inter-related way.

Although countries in the region have historically had fractured and blurred borders with respect to the processes of legal interpretation and political institutionalization the interactions have evolved significantly. There is no longer an exclusively vertical relationship between countries exporting rules, principles, institutions and jurisprudence (the so-called global North) and those importing such legal resources (the so-called global South).

Interactions are becoming increasingly horizontal between global South countries. Creatively dealing with judicial, theoretical and doctrinal input from the global North, Latin American countries like Mexico, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Argentina have begun to generate their own legal discourse. Incentivizing dialogic mechanisms and mutual references among local constitutional courts has been one of the most interesting features of these horizontal interactions.[1]

Dialogic mechanisms evolved during the last few decades are vivid expressions of the trans-nationalization of constitutional law in Latin America. Such dialogue has occurred primarily among countries which, during the last three decades, have undertaken constitutional amendments featuring important organic (i.e., creation of constitutional courts) and dogmatic (i.e., new rights and principles) changes.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on April 13, 2018
Author:          Filed under: Analysis

Quo vadis, Inter-American Court? Activism, Backlash and Latin American Constitutionalism (I-CONnect Column)

Francisca Pou Giménez, ITAM, Mexico City

[Editor’s note: This is one of our biweekly I-CONnect columns. Columns, while scholarly in accordance with the tone of the blog and about the same length as a normal blog post, are a bit more “op-ed” in nature than standard posts. For more information about our four columnists for 2018, see here.]

Next July, it will be 30 years since the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) issued its first ruling, Velásquez Rodríguez (1988). In three decades, we have witnessed a wealth of developments that were hard to imagine when this body – whose seven Justices work pro bono, with the support of a small staff and shrinking funds reluctantly provided by States at the OAS – joined the Inter-American Commission in striving to ameliorate human rights abuses in the region.

The Court has been generous in innovations, which include an intense watching of state duties to prevent violations by public and private actors, a liberal stance towards procedural requirements, forceful doctrines regarding rights indivisibility and disadvantaged groups, and a rich and pioneering remedial toolkit. Most notably, it has adopted the doctrine of “conventionality control,” which urges judges and other national authorities to assure, within the limits of their jurisdiction, the efficacy of the Convention, inaugurating an integrative framework of relations between national and international legal sources and authorities.[1] Partly because of attitude and will, and partly because of specificities of institutional design,[2] the Court has gained a reputation as being distinctively activist.

Three recent episodes have garnered attention in the legal community for once again ringing the bell of activism. The first is the Fontevecchia saga (2011-2018), which documents the back-and-forth between the IACtHR and the Supreme Court of Argentina with regards to a privacy vs. free speech case. The second is the Lagos del Campo ruling (2017), where the Court declared for the first time the direct efficacy of social and economic rights in the context of the American Convention. The third is Advisory Opinion N. 24 (2017), on gender identity and non-discrimination of same-sex couples. While the three episodes confirm that the Court consistently feels like it needs to take certain roads, despite more conciliatory ones being available, I suggest that the activism/backlash outcry should probably redirect its arguments, given regional constitutional commitments and the growing State willingness to play the Inter-American political card.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on April 11, 2018
Author:          Filed under: Analysis

The Agenda-Setting Crisis in the Brazilian Supreme Court

Ranieri Lima Resende, PhD. in Law Candidate, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (Brazil); Visiting Doctoral Researcher, New York University; José Ribas Vieira, Full Professor of Constitutional Law, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (Brazil).*

The current national debate in Brazil about the recent imprisonment of the former President of the Republic, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva,[1] brings to light a collateral but important question focused on agenda-setting in the Brazilian Supreme Court.

After his conviction was confirmed by the Federal Court of Appeals based on charges of corruption and money laundering,[2] former President Lula requested a preemptive Habeas Corpus before the Superior Court of Justice against the high risk of the provisional execution of the criminal sentence. The Superior Tribunal denied this remedy[3] based on the Supreme Court’s precedent of 2016, which had allowed immediate imprisonments after the decision of the Court of Appeals, without waiting for the definitive end of criminal process.[4] As a last shot, a second Habeas Corpus was directly presented to the Brazilian Supreme Court and recently rejected by a small majority (6 to 5).[5]

Concomitantly with these facts, the current Brazilian Supreme Court’s President, Judge Cármen Lúcia, declined to submit to the plenary two erga omnes cases focused on the provisional execution of criminal sentences, despite explicit pressure from other Judges[6] and the aggressive environment generated by political tensions.[7] This action of the Court’s President were relevant because the analysis of these erga omnes cases by the plenary could have overruled the 2016 precedent, potentially changing the result of other judgments, including former President Lula’s.

This illustrates an old problem involving the discretionary power of the President of the Brazilian Supreme Court to set the institutional agenda of the plenary.[8] A historical analysis of the relevant rules offers interesting perspectives on the “pre-decision” stage of judgments.[9]

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on April 10, 2018
Author:          Filed under: Analysis

What’s New in Public Law

Sandeep Suresh, Faculty Member, Jindal Global Law School

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 Supreme Court of Columbia held that the Amazon rainforest is an entity possessing legal rights with the aim of curbing massive deforestation in that region.
  2. The US Supreme Court held that an Arizona police officer who shot a woman with a knife in her hand outsider her own home was entitled to qualified immunity from any liability. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor observed that the majority’s decision allows police officers to “shoot first and think later”.
  3. The Supreme Court of California (USA) held that the law which allows the State to collect DNA samples from felons is constitutional.
  4. The Supreme Court of India will decide whether the ‘creamy layer’ amongst Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes can be excluded from the ambit of reservation policy. At the moment, the creamy layer exception is only put on Other Backward Classes (OBCs).
  5. The European Court of Human Rights rejected a German national’s challenge against his conviction for posting a picture of a Nazi chief wearing a swastika armband on his blog.

In the News

  1. Justice J. Chelameswar, the second senior most judge of the Indian Supreme Court, wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of India asking him to call a full court meeting to discuss the government’s excessive interference in judicial appointments.
  2. The Parliament of Malaysia passed a bill which criminalizes publishing and spreading fake news. Offenders can be sent to prison for maximum six years for committing the said crime.
  3. The President of South Korean, Mr. Moon Jae-in, proposed constitutional reforms that have the capacity to reduce presidential powers.
  4. In India, opposition parties are planning to move an impeachment motion in the Parliament against the sitting Chief Justice of India.
  5. The Consultative Committee in Philippines proposed to include ‘Rights of the Poor’ such as education, health, and decent housing in their national constitution.

 New Scholarship

  1. Paul Daly, Updating the Procedural Law of Judicial Review of Administrative Action, University of British Columbia Law Review (2018 forthcoming) (developing a set of considerations which courts ought to keep in mind when updating the procedural law to bring it into line with the substantive law in Canada).
  2. Bríd Ní Ghráinne and Aisling McMahon, Access to Abortion in Cases of Fatal Fetal Abnormality: A New Direction for the European Court of Human Rights? (March 12, 2018) (pointing out that the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights is slowly aligning with internationally recognized principles of abortion rights).
  3. Benjamin Joshua Ong, The Doctrine of Severability in Constitutional Review: A Perspective from Singapore, Statute Law Review (2018) (explaining Singapore’s law on the doctrine of severability used in constitutional review in light of the Singapore Court of Appeal’s decision in Prabagaran a/l Srivijayan v Public Prosecutor).
  4. Nicholas Papaspyrou, Constitutional Argument and Institutional Structure in the United States (Hart Publishing 2018) (arguing that constitutional interpretation is a special kind of practical reasoning, aiming to construct and specify morally sound accounts of the Constitution and surrounding constitutional practice).
  5. Steve Sanders, Dignity and Social Meaning: Obergefell, Windsor, and Lawrence as Constitutional Dialogue, Fordham Law Review (2018 forthcoming) (examining the significance of dignity, the principle that unifies Obergefell v. Hodges, United States v. Windsor, and Lawrence v. Texas, to show how the Supreme Court interprets democratic preferences and constructs social meaning in order to apply fundamental constitutional norms to emerging legal claims).
  6. Franita Tolson, Election Law ‘Federalism’ and the Limits of the Antidiscrimination Framework, William & Mary Law Review (Vol. 59, 2018) (claiming that the Congress and the courts can disregard state sovereignty in enacting, enforcing, and resolving the constitutionality of legislation passed pursuant to the Elections Clause).

Call for Papers and Announcements

  1. The University of Melbourne and the University of Cambridge are jointly organizing a conference on ‘The Frontiers of Public Law’ on July 11-13, 2018 in Melbourne. Interested participants may register for the conference at the earliest.
  2. The ‘19th Yale/Stanford/Harvard Junior Faculty Forum’ will be held on June 13-14, 2018 at Harvard Law School. Scholars who are interested to present their papers at this forum must submit their papers by March 1, 2018 to Rebecca Tushnet at
  3. The American Constitution Society is organizing the ‘2018 ACS National Convention’ on June 7-9, 2018. Interested participants may register online for the convention.
  4. The Government and Law research group at the University of Antwerp is organizing an expert seminar on ‘Constitutional asymmetry in multi-tiered multinational systems’ on April 23-24, 2018. Interested participants may register for the seminar at the earliest.
  5. The Institute of Hazrat Mohammad is organizing a ‘Summer School on Human Rights 2018’ on July 1-5, 2018 in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Interested applicants must submit their application and register before June 10, 2018.

Elsewhere Online

  1. Noah Feldman, Poland Has a Way Out of Its Holocaust Memory Law, Bloomberg View
  2. Editorial, What the Supreme Court Doesn’t Get About Racism, New York Times
  3. Balázs Majtényi, Alíz Nagy, and Péter Kállai, “Only Fidesz” – Minority Electoral Law in Hungary, Verfassungsblog
  4. Senem Gurol, Resuscitating the Turkish Constitutional Court: The ECtHR’s Alpay and Altan Judgments, Strasbourg Observers
  5. Janina Boughey, Resolving some ‘anomalies’ and ‘snares’ in judicial review: Probuild Construction, AUSPUBLAW
  6. Justin Florence and Berin Szóka, Trump vs. Bezos: The president is on the wrong side of the Constitution, The Seattle Times
Print Friendly
Published on April 9, 2018
Author:          Filed under: Developments

Virtual Bookshelf: “New Challenges to Constitutional Adjudication in Europe: A Comparative Perspective” (Routledge 2018)

Richard Albert, The University of Texas at Austin

The newest book in the Routledge Series on Comparative Constitutional Change is a volume on New Challenges to Constitutional Adjudication in Europe: A Comparative Perspective, co-edited by Zoltán Szente and Fruzsina Gárdos-Orosz, both of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and the National University of Public Service.

Here is a short description of the book:

In the past few years, constitutional courts have been presented with new challenges. The world financial crisis, the new wave of terrorism, mass migration and other country-specific problems have had wide-ranging effects on the old and embedded constitutional standards and judicial constructions. This book examines how, if at all, these unprecedented social, economic and political problems have affected constitutional review in Europe. As the courts’ response must conform with EU law and in some cases international law, analysis extends to the related jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. The collection adopts a common analytical structure to examine how the relevant challenges have been addressed in ten country specific case studies. Alongside these, constitutional experts frame the research within the theoretical understanding of the constitutional difficulties of the day in Europe. Finally, a comparative chapter examines the effects of multilevel constitutionalism and identifies general European trends.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on April 8, 2018
Author:          Filed under: Reviews

The Rise of Comparative Constitutional Change — Book Review: Reijer Passchier and Alissa Verhagen on “The Foundations and Traditions of Constitutional Amendment”

[Editor’s Note: In this installment of I•CONnect’s Book Review Series, Reijer Passchier and Alissa Verhagen review The Foundations and Traditions of Constitutional Amendment (Hart 2017), edited by Richard Albert, Xenophon Contiades and Alkmene Fotiadou]

–Reijer Passchier[*] and Alissa Verhagen[**]

I. The renaissance of an issue

The matter of constitutional change is one of the most difficult and challenging issues of modern constitutional law.[1] For instance, the question as to how difficult it should be to change a constitution was prominent during various constitutional conventions that were held at the end of the 18th and the early 19th centuries. Nevertheless, the matter of constitutional change in comparative constitutional law has always been a bit like the runt of the litter. Perhaps this is because the constitution that most comparativists take as a reference point – the constitution of the United States (US) -, has rarely been amended. The United States constitutional legislator adopted its last amendment, the 27th amendment in 1992; the penultimate amendment – the 26th – was adopted in 1971. What didn’t help the matter is that both amendments have not been of fundamental importance to the development of American constitutional law, as they concerned such important, but not truly fundamental matters, as the salary of the Congress and the electoral age respectively.

However, in the last two decades, a true renaissance of the study of comparative law of constitutional change has taken place.[2] This is partly because authors such as Bruce Ackerman and David Strauss resoundingly showed that major constitutional developments in the US, such as the New Deal and the Civil Rights Revolution, took place outside the amendment procedure of the US Constitution.[3] Because of these sweeping reinterpretations of American constitutional history, people in other countries started wondering whether ‘constitutional moments’ or ‘informal constitutional changes’ had taken place in their own area as well.[4]

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on April 4, 2018
Author:          Filed under: Richard Albert

What’s New in Public Law

Simon Drugda, Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, University of Oxford (UK)

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. A judge on Albania’s Constitutional Court has been released from duty after not being able to justify his income to a vetting commission.
  2. A panel of five judges will hear a consolidated case challenging the process and subsequent constitutional amendment of the age limit for a presidential candidate in Uganda.
  3. The Constitutional Court of Chile struck down a law that would have banned universities operating for profit, dealing a blow to free tuition reforms by former president Michelle Bachelet.
  4. American Samoa residents living in Utah filed a lawsuit in a second attempt to gain citizenship status for residents of the U.S. territory.
  5. An administrative court approved Vienna Airport’s plan to build a third runway, more than ten years after the project was first submitted for review. The Constitutional Court of Austria annulled the first ruling of the lower court, which blocked the expansion project for environmental reasons.

In the News

  1. South Korean President Moon Jae-in proposed constitutional amendments to reduce presidential power. This marks the first time since 1980 that the president has proposed a constitutional change.
  2. Maldives President Abdulla Yameen lifted a 45-day-long state of emergency which had outlawed protests during a surge in political turmoil.
  3. A Kenyan high court judge found the Minister of Interior and the inspector general of police guilty of contempt of court and ordered that they appear for sentencing.
  4. Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens called for the repeal of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, which gives Americans the right to keep and bear firearms.
  5. A Kenyan appeals court ruled that it is unconstitutional to conduct invasive bodily exams to determine whether persons have engaged in “homosexual conduct.”
  6. A Brazilian appeals court unanimously upheld the corruption conviction of former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

New Scholarship

  1. Stephen Gardbaum, Due Process of Lawmaking Revisited (forthcoming 2018) University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law (arguing that statutes enacted by means of illegitimate procedures, including the paying or withholding of donations for votes as with the recent Republican tax law in the U.S., violate the constitutional requirement of due process in lawmaking and should be invalidated by the courts)
  2. Giacomo Delledonne, House of Cards: Comparing the British and the American TV Series from a Constitutional Perspective, 12 Journal of Law, Literature and Culture (2018) (comparing the British and American House of Cards TV series from a constitutional viewpoint)
  3. Jeremy Horder, Criminal Misconduct in Office: Law and Politics (2018) (analyzing the application of the offense of misconduct in public office to personal corruption in politics in England and Wales)
  4. James R. Maxeiner, Failures of American Methods of Lawmaking in Historical and Comparative Perspectives (2018) (arguing that rule-making in civil law jurisdictions makes for a more equitable legal system than the American way of lawmaking)
  5. Giuseppe Franco Ferrari, Reijer Passchier, and Wim Voermans (eds), The Dutch Constitution Beyond 200: Tradition and Innovation in a Multilevel Legal Order (2018) (providing a comparative thematic introduction to the Constitution of the Netherlands)
  6. Jud Mathews, Extending Rights’ Reach: Constitutions, Private Law, and Judicial Power (2018) (discussing how courts make choices about whether, when, and how to give rights horizontal effect in three case studies, of Germany, the United States, and Canada)
  7. John Dinan, State Constitutional Politics: Governing by Amendment in the American States (2018) (looking at the various occasions in American history when state constitutional amendments have served as instruments of governance)

Special Announcement

The Arab Association of Constitutional Law (AACL) is pleased to announce the publication of its first annual Yearbook. The first publication of its kind, the Yearbook includes 22 chapters, contributions from 21 authors, who stem from 10 different countries. The first edition of the Yearbook is the outcome of several years of effort by the Arab Association of Constitutional Law’s membership.

Call for Papers and Announcements

  1. The Faculty of Law at Masaryk University and the Institute of State and Law of the Czech Academy of Sciences invite submissions for a conference on “Qualitative Research in Law,” to be held on October 26, 2018. The deadline for submission of abstracts is June 30.
  2. The LUISS School of Government in cooperation with LUISS Centre for Parliamentary Studies, CEUR Foundation, International Political Science Association (IPSA), SciencesPo – Centre d’études européennes, and ULB, Université Libre de Bruxelles invite applications for the 7th edition of the Summer Program-Jean Monnet Module on “Parliamentary democracy in Europe”, this year devoted to “Parliamentary Accountability and New Technologies: Transparency, Privacy and Security Challenges“, and taking place at LUISS Guido Carli University, Rome, on July9-20, 2018. The deadline for applications is April 29.
  3. The Chair for Public Law and Comparative Law at the Humboldt University of Berlin and the Friedrich Naumann Stiftung for Freedom invite submissions for a workshop on “The Future of Law: Technology, Innovation and Access to Justice,” to be held on November 29-30, 2018. The deadline for submission of abstracts is April 22.
  4. The WZB Berlin Social Science Center, the European University Institute and the London School for Economics and Political Science invite submissions for the second European Junior Faculty Forum for Public Law and Jurisprudence to be held at the European University Institute on July 12-13, 2018. The deadline for submissions is May 1.
  5. The Asser Institute invites applications for a postdoctoral position in human rights to assist with the Memory Laws in European and Comparative Perspectives (MELA) project and to strengthen the research capacity of the Asser Institute in anti-discrimination law in a dedicated research strand on “Human dignity and security in international and European law.” The deadline for submission of applications is 15 May 2018.
  6. Science Po Law School invites submissions for its 7th graduate conference on “Law and Disruption,” to be held on June 20, 2018. The deadline for submission of abstracts is April 15.

Elsewhere Online

  1. Max Steuer, The Slovak Constitutional Court on Amnesties and Appointments of Constitutional Judges: Supporting Unrestrained Majoritarianism?, Diritti Comparati
  2. David R. Cameron, Brexit negotiation takes decisive step forward but toughest issues lie ahead, Yale Macmillan Centre
  3. Benjamin Novak, The Honorable Péter Szepesházi: Threat of disciplinary proceedings used to pressure judges, The Budapest Beacon
  4. Matt Glassman, House Procedure, Agenda Setting, and Impeachment, Yale Journal of Regulation Blog
  5. Andrew Hamm, Does the shape of the Supreme Court’s bench affect oral argument?, SCOTUSblog
  6. Richard L. Hasen, Supreme Court Avoids Bush v. Gore II in Ducking Pennsylvania Redistricting Controversy, Harvard Law Review Blog
  7. Steven D. Schwinn, District Court Rejects Suit Against Trump for Violations of the Presidential Records Act, Constitutional Law Prof Blog
  8. Noah Feldman, Second Amendment Repeal Would Hurt Constitution, Bloomberg View
  9. Dominic Ruck Keene, The ‘reasonable citizen’ — Sergei Skripal, UK Human Rights Blog
  10. Jordi Nieva-Fenoll, High Treason in Germany – Rebellion in Spain, Verfassungsblog
  11. Marcelo Figueiredo, Administrative Discretion: a comparative analysis, Blog of the IACL, AIDC
  12. Jerome A. Cohen, Xi Jinping Amends China’s Constitution, Jerry’s Blog
  13. Stephanie Tai, The Human Rights Implications of Xi Jinping’s Limitless Presidential Term, OxHRH
  14. Michael Henry Ll. Yusingco, ‘Imperial Manila’ is a constitutional design: Towards configuring executive authority in a federal system, ConstitutionNet
  15. Pierre de Vos, Is the state authorised to pay Jacob Zuma’s private lawyers in his corruption case?, Constitutionally Speaking
  16. Satang Nabaneh, The unspoken: Unsafe abortion in The Gambia and the necessity for legal reform, AfricLaw
  17. Faizan Mustafa, Rethinking the ‘Office of Profit’ disqualification, Law and Other Things
  18. Saad Rasool, Do courts have authority to punish people for judicial contempt?, Global Village Space
  19. Richard Cullen, Filibustering: Flawed in Principle and Bad for Hong Kong, IPP Review
  20. Lael K. Weis, Legislation as a Method of Constitutional Reform: An Alternative to Formal Amendment?, AUSPUBLAW
Print Friendly
Published on April 2, 2018
Author:          Filed under: Developments