magnify

I·CONnect

Blog of the International Journal of Constitutional Law and ConstitutionMaking.org

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 contact.iconnect@gmail.com.

Developments in Constitutional Courts

  1. The Constitutional Court of Moldova held that the Parliament can launch suspension of President Igor Dodon for his refusal to approve a new defence minister for more than ten months. Meanwhile the Association of Constitutional Justice of the Countries of the Baltic and Black Sea Regions (BBCJ) condemned the pressure on the Court by the President.
  2. The Constitutional Court of Latvia ruled that the country’s solidarity tax unconstitutionally discriminates against high earners contrary to Art 91 of the Constitution (the anti-discrimination clause).
  3. The Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt ruled that protest cases must be tried in ordinary civilian, not military, courts.
  4. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled Greek police cannot enforce a blanket height requirement for police recruits because such a policy discriminates against women.
  5. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that the conviction of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny on charges of embezzlement was arbitrary and unfair.
  6. The UK Supreme Court found the local authority in Nottinghamshire “vicariously liable” for the abuse of a woman by her foster parents when she was as a child.
  7. The UK Supreme Court held that employing a domestic worker could not be said to fall within a diplomat’s official functions. A diplomat and his wife were no longer shielded by immunity because his posting in the UK had finished.
  8. Despite the Supreme Court ban on the sale of fireworks in Delhi during the Diwali festival, the air pollution in Indian capital hits 18 times the healthy limit after a night of celebrations.
  9. The Constitutional Court of Guatemala withdrew the Foreign Ministry’s warning to the head of the UN International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG).
  10. The Supreme Judicial Council of Iraq ordered the arrest of the VP of the Kurdistan Region for calling troops sent to Kirkuk this week “occupying forces.”
  11. The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany rejected a petition to block the Bundesbank from participating in the European Central Bank (ECB) plan to purchase bonds.
  12. The Constitutional Court of Spain held that the Catalan independence referendum was illegal.

In the News

  1. The Spanish government is planning to suspend Catalonia’s autonomy and impose direct rule (invoking Art 155 of the Constitution) after the region’s president refused to abandon the push for independence.
  2. Georgian President Giorgi Margvelashvili signed into law a new Constitution that will do away with direct election for president and switch to a system of proportional representation in parliament. Margvelashvili had unsuccessfully vetoed the draft bill.
  3. China’s ruling Communist Party has agreed to amend the party constitution, expected to embed President Xi Jinping’s political thought.
  4. Kosovo’s PM confirmed that the government will try to transform the nation’s security forces into a regular army through constitutional changes.
  5. Japan and Czech Republic voted in general elections.
  6. The National Assembly of Quebec passed a contentious bill that would require public workers and citizens seeking government services to have their faces uncovered.
  7. A Pakistani anti-corruption court indicted ousted Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his daughter over allegations linked to ownership of London properties.

New Scholarship

  1. Andras Jakab and Viktor Lorincz, International Indices as Models for the Rule of Law Scoreboard of the European Union: Methodological Issues (2017) (analysing methodological issues of international rule of law indices, with a special emphasis on whether and how these could be used in the current constitutional crisis of the European Union)
  2. Nicola Lupo and Giovanni Piccirilli, The Italian Parliament in the European Union (2017) (exploring the role of the Italian Parliament in the Euro-national parliamentary system and the composite European constitutional order)
  3. Rivka Weill, Bills of Rights with Strings Attached: Protecting the Past from Judicial Review, in Rosalind Dixon, Geoffrey Sigalet and Grégoire Webber (eds.), Constitutional Dialogue: Rights, Democracy, Institutions (2017) (seeking to illuminate the theoretical and comparative dimensions of savings clauses in constitutions)
  4. Ozan Varol, The Democratic Coup d’État (2017) (arguing that, sometimes, a democracy is established through a military coup)
  5. Cedric Jenart and Stéphanie De Somer, Non-statutory Rulemaking and the Rule of Law: towards a ‘Law of Rules’?, sui-generis (2017) (critically assessing the rule of law challenges to rulemaking by private actors and autonomous public bodies)
  6. Justine Guichard, In the Name of the People: Disagreeing over Peoplehood in the North and South Korean Constitutions, 4 Asian Journal of Law and Society (2017) (examining the claims about peoplehood articulated in North and South Korean Constitutions since their concurrent adoption in 1948)
  7. Mark Elliott, Judicial Power and the United Kingdom’s Changing Constitution (2017) (charting the growth of judicial power in the UK and considering its proper limits)
  8. Michael A Helfand, When Judges are Theologians: Adjudicating Religious Questions, in Rex Ahdar (ed.), Research Handbook on Law & Religion (forthcoming 2018) (exploring how judges and US courts in general deal with legal disputes when they must consider not only laws and facts, but also religion and theology)

Calls for Papers and Announcements

  1. The Minerva Center for the Rule of Law under Extreme Conditions (RLEC) at the University of Haifa, Faculty of Law and the Geography and Environmental Studies Department invite submissions for participation in the second young researchers workshop on “Terrorism and Belligerency.” The deadline for abstracts is November 17, 2017.
  2. The University of Leicester invites proposals of early career researchers for papers at a workshop on “The Neglected Methodologies of International Law – Empirical, Socio-Legal and Comparative.” The deadline for abstracts is November 15, 2017.
  3. The Northern Institute for Environmental and Minority Law (NIEM) at the Arctic Centre of the University of Lapland organizes the 10th Polar Law Symposium at the Arctic Centre in Rovaniemi, Finland.
  4. The student chapter of the American Constitution Society at Barry University School of Law and Texas A&M University School of Law invite submissions to the 3rd Annual Constitutional Law Scholars Forum. The deadline to submit proposals is December 1, 2017.
  5. The Toronto Group for the Study of International, Transnational, and Comparative Law invites submissions of abstracts for the 11th Annual Toronto Group Conference, to be held March 1–2, 2018, at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto, Canada.

Elsewhere Online

  1. David R Cameron, You are here Catalonia after the referendum: independence, Article 155 or dialogue?, Yale MacMillan Center
  2. Sofia Francescutto and Mario Ricciardi, Playing the Referendum Game in Northern Italy, Verfassungsblog
  3. Claire McCann, Separate but Equal? Gender Segregation in UK Schools, OxHRH
  4. Colin PA Jones, Duck and cover: Regulation by and for the state, through the Japanese people, The Japan Times
  5. Mark Elliott, Can Parliament block a ‘no deal’ Brexit?, Public Law for Everyone
  6. Robert Craig, Why an Act of Parliament Would Be Required to Revoke Notification under Article 50, UK Constitutional Law Association
  7. David Judge and Cristina Leston-Bandeir, Standing up for parliament: how non-elected officials represent parliament as an institution, The Constitution Unit
  8. Fiona de Londras, Repeal or Replace?, Human Rights in Ireland
  9. Sue Milne, Aliens, Executive Power, and the Rule of Law, AUSPUBLAW
  10. Pierre de Vos, Fact-checking claims about the prosecution of President Jacob Zuma, Constitutionally Speaking
  11. Olabisi D Akinkugbe, Recalibrating Nigeria’s Whistleblowing Policy: An urgent plea for a comprehensive whistleblower protection legislation, AfricLaw
  12. Idayat Hassan, Nigeria’s constitutional reform process: The quest for a people-driven constitution, ConstitutionNet
  13. Noah Feldman, How Justice Kennedy Could Give Both Parties a Win, Bloomberg View
  14. Abbe Gluck, Trump’s ACA Sabotage and the President’s Constitutional Duty to Take Care that the Laws be Faithfully Executed, Balkinization
Print Friendly
Published on October 23, 2017
Author:          Filed under: Developments
 

The Brazilian Moment in the Judicialization of Mega-Politics

–Vanice Lirio do Valle, Estacio de Sá University

The Brazilian political crisis is visible worldwide, due to the bombastic effects of the findings in the huge police investigation called the “car-wash operation”.  From the initial imprisonment of Senator Delcidio Amaral in 2015, up to the second criminal complaint addressed to President Michel Temer who was charged with leading a criminal organization in 2017, dozens of important political figures, including the President of Congress, have been charged or even incarcerated for corruption. According to the Brazilian Constitution (art. 53),[1] members of Parliament are immune to civil and criminal charges arising from opinions, speeches and votes; and any kind of lawsuit against these political characters will be held by the Supreme Court. A panel of the Supreme Court itself[2] issued a preliminary order in a criminal lawsuit suspending Senator Aecio Neves’s mandate, and prohibiting him from being outside his home at night. Congress reacted, claiming that those provisional measures were not applicable to Parliament members due to the above mentioned constitutional clause, raising threats of non-compliance. These events recall Ran Hirschl’s paper on the judicialization of mega-politics.[3]

The latest event was last week’s ruling in case ADI 5526. That lawsuit questioned, in the abstract, the interpretation of the Criminal Procedure Code on provisional measures. The petitioners demanded that the provision must be interpreted to either exempt congressmen from these orders, or require any such measures to be communicated to Congress within 24 hours in order to get formal approval from that body.  It was clear to the Brazilian public that the ruling, despite having been issued in an abstract judicial review lawsuit, was really about provisional measures applied to Senator Aécio Neves and its subsequent political turmoil.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on October 22, 2017
Author:          Filed under: Developments
 

Developments in Swedish Constitutional Law: The Year 2016 in Review

Editor’s Note: Today we publish the 2016 Report on Swedish constitutional law, which appears in the larger 44-country Global Review of Constitutional Law, now available here in a smaller file size for downloading and emailing.


–Thomas Bull, Justice of the Supreme Administrative Court, LL.D., Associate Professor (docent) and former Professor (full) in Constitutional Law, Uppsala University, and Anna Jonsson Cornell, Professor (full) in Comparative Constitutional Law and Associate Professor (docent) in Constitutional Law, Uppsala University.

I. Introduction

Politically, the migration situation in Europe played a large role in Swedish politics throughout 2016. Several of the measures adopted by the Swedish Parliament and Government in order to cope with the situation have constitutional implications, touching upon, for example, border control and the division of powers between the state and municipalities. The impact of the new EU data protection regime on Swedish law has also been devoted a lot of attention, most recently as a result of the decision by the CJEU on December 12, 2016, in the Tele2 case.

Sweden is a parliamentary democracy, the Instrument of Government (IG) (Regeringsformen), 1:1, 4, 6, and a unitary state with a constitutionally protected local self-government. The power and status of local authorities are regulated in the constitution (IG 1:1(2), ch. 14), although the legislature has explicitly abstained from laying down a constitutional definition of the scope and meaning of local self-government.[1] The local authorities’ taxation right (IG 14:4) together with the statement in IG 14:2 that local authorities are responsible for local and regional matters of public interest based on the principle of local self-government, is the primary expression of local self-government. All matters concerning the competence and responsibility of local authorities, including principles concerning the organization and working procedures of local authorities together with local taxation, must be regulated by an act of law (IG 14:2, 8:2(3)). An explicit reference is made to the principle of proportionality in IG 14:3 which states Any restriction in local self-government should not exceed what is necessary with regard to the purpose of the restriction. Local authorities have no regulatory powers based on the constitution; a delegation from the Parliament (Riksdag) is necessary. Such a delegation can be direct from the Riksdag to local authorities (IG 8:9) or indirect via the Government (IG 8:10).

Read the rest of this entry…

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

A Plea for Dialogue: An Open Letter on Catalonia from Constitutional & International Law Scholars

Zoran Oklopcic, Department of Law and Legal Studies, Carleton University

The Center for Constitutional Transitions, in partnership with the Edinburgh Center for Constitutional Law, has released an open letter on the constitutional crisis in Catalonia, “A Call for Dialogue. The coordinators of the letter are Sujit Choudhry, Director of the Center for Constitutional Transitions & I. Michael Heyman Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley; Robert Howse, Lloyd C. Nelson Professor of International Law at the New York University School of Law; Zoran Oklopcic, Department of Law and Legal Studies, Carleton University; and Asanga Welikala, Director, Edinburgh Centre for Constitutional Law & Lecturer in Public Law, School of Law, University of Edinburgh.

A Call for Dialogue:

  • calls on the heads of Spanish and Catalan governments to act in a good faith, open-minded constitutional dialogue on the political status of Catalonia;
  • urges Mr. Puigdemont, the President of Catalonia, to demonstrate the sincerity of his commitment to dialogue by acknowledging the legitimate concerns of those who doubt that his government has a democratic mandate to pursue the secession of Catalonia;
  • proposes that the best way to dispel those doubts is to organize a referendum that would provide a more accurate indication of the aspirations of the Catalan people;
  • urges Mr. Rajoy to publicly recognize such aspirations as, in principle, legitimate, and to refrain from using repression to suppress them;
  • calls on both sides to embrace a popular referendum as the best means of obtaining a clearer picture of the extent of the challenge that Catalan aspirations for independence pose to the Spanish constitutional order; and
  • invites both sides to work towards a negotiated constitutional settlement that would protect constitutional rights of everyone involved, giving due regard to Catalan political aspirations, in conformity with the ideals of democracy and the rule of law.

The letter is signed by a distinguished group of constitutional and international law scholars and is open for signature at http://www.constitutionaltransitions.org/catalonia.

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

Book Review: Antonios Kouroutakis on Frank Fagan & Saul Levmore’s “The Timing of Lawmaking”

[Editor’s Note: In this installment of I•CONnect’s Book Review Series, Antonios Kouroutakis reviews Frank Fagan & Saul Levmore’s “The Timing of Lawmaking” (Edward Elgar 2017).]

Antonios Kouroutakis, IE Law School, Madrid

There has been much ink shed about lawmaking; from the law and the politics of lawmaking to the due process of lawmaking and from constitutional lawmaking to judicial lawmaking. However, little attention was paid until recently to the timing of lawmaking and the overall interaction between time and laws. It is said that “timing is everything” but the timing of lawmaking, whether a law is temporary or not, whether such law will expire or be activated after a certain period of time, whether a law has a short term or a long term effect seems to be a secondary consideration.

The academic interaction between time and laws, which was opened up the last decade with a series of monographs[1] and articles,[2] is substantially widened with the Frank Fagan’s and Saul Levmore’s edited book on “The Timing of Lawmaking”. With this new edited book, which includes a mixture of contributions from well-established and career – younger scholars, light is shed on some neglected aspects of the complex and multifaceted relationship between lawmakers and time while fresh perspectives are offered on how law’s architecture is affected by time.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on October 19, 2017
Author:          Filed under: Reviews
 

Developments in Austrian Constitutional Law: The Year 2016 in Review

Editor’s Note: Today we publish the 2016 Report on Austrian constitutional law, which appears in the larger 44-country Global Review of Constitutional Law, now available here in a smaller file size for downloading and emailing.


Konrad Lachmayer, Professor of Public and European Law at the Sigmund Freud University in Vienna; Ingrid Siess-Scherz, Judge at the Austrian Constitutional Court

I. Introduction

The year 2016 was dominated by the Austrian presidential elections, which were closer than ever before. The drama levels were increased when the Constitutional Court annulled the result of the run-off election (the first time this had happened in Austrian constitutional history). In the end, the (relatively) clear majority achieved against the Freedom Party candidate in the rescheduled election in December 2016 concluded an eventful year in politics.

Besides these core constitutional developments, it is worth mentioning that the role of the Constitutional Court is changing, with the Court´s competences having been extended in the last few years. In 2014, it gained the competence to review the procedures of the parliamentary investigative committee,[1] which led to important case law in 2015. Meanwhile, since it had not been possible in the traditional Austrian constitutional framework for an individual to file a constitutional complaint against a judgment of an ordinary court, a new kind of legal protection was introduced in 2013,[2] giving parties in civil or criminal law cases at ordinary courts the possibility to file a constitutional complaint against the statutory provisions applied by the ordinary court of first instance; the Constitutional Court can now review the constitutionality of the respective provisions at the request of a party and not only at the request of the court. The scope of this access to the Constitutional Court was significantly increased by the Constitutional Court in 2016.[3]

Read the rest of this entry…

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

Governing in a Liberal-Constitutional State: Dealing With the Clash Between Legality and Legitimacy in Chile and Spain (I-CONnect Column)

Javier Couso, Universidad Diego Portales & Utrecht University

[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 2017, see here.]

I.

In a constitutional state, law is supposed to be the ultimate benchmark that governmental acts ought to be measured against. Hence that old axiom of Public Law, according to which while a private individual can do whatever she wants –unless it is expressly forbidden by law—, state entities can only do that which is expressly permitted by law.

The centrality of law for the operation of a constitutional state does not, however, exhaust the issue of the nature and scope of governmental action. In fact, recent developments in Spain and Chile reveal that, while the above is the general rule, there are instances in which good governance ought to include actions by the administration which –if not against the law— go beyond it.

II.

In the case of Chile, the issue came about when a group of four Mapuche activists (who have spent over eighteen months in so-called ‘preventive prison,’ while waiting trial for arson) started a hunger strike as a way to protest the use of the harsh anti-terrorist legislation being applied to them for acts which they consider do not qualify as ‘terrorist’, and which, according to most international human rights observers, do not fully respect procedural due process standards. Confronted with the actual risk that one of the Mapuche activists might die, the government asked the courts to allow the strikers to be held under home arrest instead of preventive prison. Chile’s government action was immediately denounced by domestic conservative groups as a ‘capitulation’ against a group of violent terrorists, as well as an action that weakened the rule of law. The administration replied that its duty to govern included preventing the escalation of the centuries-old conflict between the Mapuche and the Chilean state (which the death of a group of hunger strikers would most certainly generate).

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on October 18, 2017
Author:          Filed under: Analysis
 

Inaugural International Society of Public Law (ICON-S) Book Prize

Richard Albert, Boston College Law School

The International Society of Public Law (ICON-S) is pleased to announce the launch of the International Society of Public Law Book Prize. In line with the Society’s mission, the prize will be awarded to an outstanding book in the field of public law, understood as a field of knowledge that transcends dichotomies between the national and the international as well as between Constitutional Law and Administrative Law. Preference will be given to scholarship which, in dealing with the challenges of public life and governance, combines elements from all of the above with a good dose of political theory and social science.

The first book prize will be awarded at the Society’s next annual meeting taking place on June 25-27, 2018 in Hong Kong to a book published in the two calendar years prior to the conference (2016-2017). The winner is selected by the Society’s Book Award Committee which for the period 2017-2018 consists of Anne Peters (chair), Jeff King, Nico Krisch, and Joana Mendes.

The nomination process is open now!

Members of the Executive Committee of the ICON-S and the Society’s Council, groups of at least three ICON-S members, book review editors of academic journals, as well as publishing houses are invited to nominate books. Please note that proposals coming directly from authors will not be considered and that edited books are not eligible for nominations. The deadline for the submission of nominations is the 31st of December 2017.

Nominations can be made via e-mail, together with an up to 200 word long justification of the proposal, to icons@icon-society.org (reference: Book Prize, attn. of the chairperson of the Book Prize Committee).

Please also consult the procedures for the ICON-S book prize on the webpage of the ICON-S for further information on the nomination procedure.

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

Hong Kong’s Unique “Co-Location” Arrangement

Dr. P. Y. Lo, Barrister-at-law, Gilt Chambers, Hong Kong; Faculty of Law, The University of Hong Kong

As Spain contemplates resuming direct rule over Catalonia, an autonomous region of Spain, by invoking the nuclear provision of Article 155 of the Spanish Constitution in October 2017, [1] at the other side of the Globe, Hong Kong, a Special Administrative Region of China, contemplates petitioning the Chinese Central Authorities for a grant of power to enable it to enact legislation to regard one part of Hong Kong as outside Hong Kong’s territory and jurisdiction, so that a simultaneous decision of the Chinese Central Authorities would authorize the stationing of Chinese officers and sanction the application of Chinese laws and jurisdiction to the same part of Hong Kong.

These are convoluted and contorted constitutional manoeuvers. If China wishes to impose direct rule on one part of Hong Kong back, there are direct ways of doing so, such as causing its State Council, the highest executive authority, to amend the administrative division map of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR); [2] or proposing the National People’s Congress (NPC), the highest organ of state power, to amend the national law that governs the HKSAR, the Basic Law of the HKSAR. [3] This short note seeks to explain why these moves are taking place and examine whether they are justified.

Read the rest of this entry…

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

What’s New in Public Law

Nausica Palazzo, Ph.D. researcher in Comparative Constitutional Law (University of Trento)

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 contact.iconnect@gmail.com.

Developments in Constitutional Courts

  1. The Constitutional Court of Colombia ruled that the peace deal with FARC cannot be amended for 12 years.
  2. The Supreme Court of India held that sex with minor bride constitutes rape.
  3. The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed one of the two travel ban cases.
  4. The French Constitutional Court found the French 3% surtax on dividend distributions to be unconstitutional in its entirety.
  5. The high court of Cape Town declared unconstitutional a law for failure to impose full and continuous disclosure of information concerning private funding of political parties.
  6. The Austrian Constitutional Court upheld the Austria Bank pension law, imposing higher contributions to shift staff into the state pension system.
  7. Malta’s Constitutional Court refused to find that the human rights of a man wrongfully convicted of daughter’s rape have been violated.

 In the News

  1. Right-wing parties win the Austrian general elections.
  2. South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that prosecutors should reinstate bribery and corruption charges against Zuma.
  3. The state of Washington has filedlawsuit against the Trump’s expansion of religious objections over the contraceptive coverage mandate under ACA. Pennsylvania followed.
  4. The Supreme Court of Indonesia ordered the government to restore public water and revoke its contract with private water utilities, for failure to protect right to water.
  5. The Venice Commission has urged Ukraine to strengthen the independence of the Anti-Corruption Court.
  6. The Parliament of Georgia overrides the presidential veto on the constitutional bill.
  7. A UK High Court rejected a challenge under the Human Rights Act 1998 to the law prohibiting assisted suicide.
  8. Germany ratified the “Istanbul Convention” prohibiting violence against women and domestic violence.
  9. The Prime Minister of Japan called for a constitutional amendment introducing the principle of civilian control over the country’s Self-Defense Forces.
  10. Former Prime Minister wins Kyrgyzstan’s presidential election in the first round.

New Scholarship

  1. Richard Albert, Single-Subject Constitutional Amendments, Boston College Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 466 (suggesting that amending the Constitution of Canada–one of the world’s most difficult to amend–could become easier under a new single-subject rule that prohibits omnibus amendment bills but permits multiple single-amendment bills only if voted on separately and differentiated by subject-matter)
  2. Or Bassok, The Arendtian Dread: Courts with Power, Ratio Juris (forthcoming) (offering a new reading to Hannah Arendt’s obscure depiction of the American Supreme Court as “the true seat of authority in the American Republic” but unfit to power)
  3. Yan Campagnolo, A Rational Approach to Cabinet Immunity Under the Common Law, 55 Alberta Law Review 1 (2017) (providing an account of the contours of the public interest immunity under the common law, and exploring the issue of whether judges are better placed than public officials to adjudicate such claims)
  4. Arthur Dyevre, Wessel Wijtvliet & Nicolas Lampach, The Future of European Legal Scholarship: Empirical Jurisprudence, (2017) (advocating in favor of the emergence of an “Empirical Jurisprudence,” and for the application of the methodology of the social sciences to European legal research)
  5. Stephen Gardbaum, What Makes for More or Less Powerful Constitutional Courts? UCLA School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 17-37 (2017) (addressing the uncertainties surrounding claims that one or other constitutional court is among the most powerful in the world: what is the proper measure of judicial power, what are its components, and what explains a court’s overall strength or weakness)
  6. Jena McGill, Now Its My Rights Versus Yours’: Equality in Tension with Religious Freedoms, 53 Alberta Law Review 3 (2016) (offering an account of the Canadian jurisprudence featuring a tension between the equality rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and queer people and the religious freedoms of faith-based communities)
  7. Douglas NeJaime, The Family’s Constitution, 32 Constitutional Commentary 413 (2017) (exploring in depth the interaction between family law and constitutional law, and debunking the myth of them being “relatively separate spheres”)

Calls for Papers and Announcements

  1. ICON-S is pleased to announce that its 2018 Annual Conference on “Identity, Security, Democracy: Challenges for Public Law” will be held in Hong Kong, on June 25-27, 2018. The Society invites submissions for the conference.
  2. The Minerva Center for the Rule of Law under Extreme Conditions at the University of Haifa invites submissions to participate in the second young researchers workshop on “Terrorism and Belligerency”. The application deadline is November 17, 2017.
  3. The University of Bologna School of Law is hosting a conference on “Citizenship in Europe and European Citizenship“, to be held in Bologna, on 16 October 2017.
  4. The current issue no. 3 (2017) of the journal “Dpce online” is hosting a symposium on “Comparative Perspectives on Originalism” (see “Casi e questioni”).
  5. The Stanford Program in International Legal Studies (SPILS) is accepting applications from foreign students interested in careers in teaching, research, the judiciary, public policy, or service in government or non-governmental organizations, for the position of “Teaching Fellow”. Applications are due by December 8, 2017.
  6. The Centre for International Law at the National University of Singapore is hosting its first annual International Law Year in Review, which will take place on February 8, 2018, in Singapore.
  7. The American Bar Foundation is accepting applications for the prestigious William H. Neukom Fellows Research Chair in Diversity and Law.
  8. The Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University is currently seeking to fill up to four tenure-track positions. All subject areas will be considered, but preference will be given to candidates interested in teaching one or more required or “core” courses.
  9. The Law & Tax Department of HEC Paris invites applications for two tenure-track (or tenured) positions (at the rank of Assistant Professor, Associate or Full Professor) in Corporate Law and in International Taxation. Applications are due by 1st December 2017.

Elsewhere Online

  1. Richard Parry, Converging Events Force the Constitutional Pace, Blog of the Centre on Constitutional Change
  2. Nicolas Bagley, Ending the cost-sharing payments, Blog of the Yale Journal of Regulation
  3. Renáta Uitz, Academic Freedom in an Illiberal Democracy: From Rule of Law through Rule by Law to Rule by Men in Hungary, Verfassungsblog
  4. Leonid Bershidsky, Italy Knows How to Solve Catalonia’s Problem: A South Tyrolean-style arrangement should resolve two of the Catalan separatists’ biggest grievances, Bloomberg
  5. Gaiane Nuridzhanian, (Non-)Recognition of De Facto Regimes in Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights: Implications for Cases Involving Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, EJIL: Talk!
  6. Perfecto Caparas, Prosecuting President Duterte, JURIST
  7. Podcast: The state of the Second Amendment, Constitution Daily
  8. Hari Osofsky & Hannah Wiseman, The pull of energy markets – and legal challenges – will blunt plans to roll back EPA carbon rules, The Conversation
  9. Albert Sánchez-Graells, Interesting report on CJEU case handling by the EU Court of Auditors, Diritti Comparati
  10. Cormac Mac Amhlaigh, Can Brexit be stopped under EU Law?, Verfassungsblog
Print Friendly
Published on October 16, 2017
Author:          Filed under: Developments