magnify

I·CONnect

Blog of the International Journal of Constitutional Law

Call for Panels and Papers–2019 ICON•S Conference on “Public Law in Times of Change?”–July 1-3, 2019–Santiago de Chile

ICON·S | The International Society of Public Law is pleased to announce that its 2019 Annual Conference will be held at the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile in Santiago, on July 1-3, 2019. This will be the sixth Annual Conference of ICON·S, following the five Annual Conferences (Florence 2014, New York 2015, Berlin 2016, Copenhagen 2017, Hong Kong 2018) which have been overwhelmingly successful, thanks to the support of our Members.

ICON·S now invites panel and paper submissions for the 2019 Annual Conference on “Public Law in Times of Change?”.

Public law is facing a myriad of new challenges – including rising popular distrust in government, increasingly closed borders, and complex economic and technological change. We are arguably living in hard times for global public law. But will these challenges result in radical changes to the field as we know it, or will public law adapt and respond in ways that reinterpret and reinvigorate its core commitments to democracy, the rule of law, and human rights in a manner that is continuous with our current practices?

Countries around the world are witnessing the reversal of longstanding democratic gains, and new authoritarian threats. Yet there are signs of resilience in the global and national public law order: popular referenda have delivered gains as well as losses for democracy; women and young people have marched in defence of public law values; and justice is being crowd-sourced and data-driven, not just undermined by foreign cyber-attacks and “fake news”.

Under the strain of technological changes and shifts in economic globalisation, the world is also confronting large-scale changes in the structure and scope of global governance and of the “administrative” state. The Welfare State is under “siege” and at both international and domestic levels the problem of economic injustice is dominating the political and socio-economic debate around the globe.

International and regional bodies are re-orienting their focus to respond to these new challenges. And commitments to constitutional and administrative reform likewise remain strong in many legal orders. They continue to engage in formal processes of constitutional review, often as part of a transition from authoritarian to democratic, and colonial to post-colonial rule: from Chile to Myanmar, Bolivia to Tuvalu, Yemen to Sudan, and from the Philippines to Gambia. Many countries are actively debating proposals for major constitutional and legal reform. Others are grappling with the legacies of past reforms and transitions, and asking whether they were sufficient to address legacies of colonialism, and the abuse of human rights, and flagrant disregard for the rule of law.

But how far can public law go in responding to these issues? Are the sources of the current democratic crisis so deeply economic and structural that they evade any meaningful public law response? Are they rooted in debates over national identity and borders, which public law can address only partially and indirectly at best? Or does public law have the resources to adapt and respond to these challenges? Can public law, for example, help shape the future direction of state and global governance, or will changes in national and international governance in fact reshape public law as we know it?

This Annual Conference will seek to address these and related issues, bringing together leading scholars, political leaders and jurists from around the world to debate these questions, and their relevance to Latin America, their own countries, and the world.

The Conference will feature a keynote address by Justice Luís Roberto Barroso of the Supreme Federal Court of Brazil, as well as three plenary sessions featuring prominent jurists, intellectuals and judges, focused on the general themes of the Conference. A provisional program can be found here. At the heart of the Conference, however, are the concurrent sessions during the three-day conference which will be devoted to the papers and panels selected through this Call.

ICON·S particularly welcomes proposals for fully-formed panels, but also accepts individual papers dealing with any aspect of the Annual Conference’s themes. Paper and panel proposals may focus on any theoretical, historical, comparative, empirical, jurisprudential, ethical, behavioral, ethnographic, philosophical or practical, policy-oriented perspective related to public law, including administrative law, constitutional law, international law, criminal law, immigration and citizenship law and human rights and may address domestic, subnational, national, regional, transnational, supranational, international and global aspects of public law.

We strongly encourage the submission of fully-formed panels. Panel proposals should include at least three papers by scholars who have agreed in advance to participate, and panel must be formed in accordance with the Society’s commitment to gender balance. Such fully-formed panel proposals should also identify one or two discussants, who may also serve as panel chair and/or paper presenter. Please kindly note that each participant can present not more than 2 papers and participate – as presenter, chair or discussant – in 4 panels maximum.

Proposals of fully formed panels may be made of – or include some – papers written and presented in Spanish. In these latter cases, paper abstracts and/or panel description must in any event be submitted in English.

Concurrent panel sessions will be scheduled over two days. Each concurrent panel session will be scheduled for 90 minutes.

We invite potential participants to refer to the ICON·S Mission Statement when choosing a topic or approach for their papers or panels.

ICON·S is by no means restricted to public lawyers! We particularly welcome panel proposals that offer genuinely multi-disciplinary perspectives from various areas of law (including civil, criminal, tax, and labor law), as well as from scholars in the humanities and the social sciences (e.g. history, economics, political science, sociology) with an interest in the Conference’s themes. We welcome submissions from both senior and junior scholars (including doctoral students) as well as interested practitioners.

All submissions must be made through the ICON·S website by 23h59 GMT on March 9, 2019. To access the submission page, you need to be a member of ICON·S. Please register or log in with your existing ICON·S account and make sure you have paid your membership fee.

Successful applicants will be notified by April 1, 2019.

All participants will be responsible for their own travel and accommodation expenses.

We very much look forward to receiving your paper and panel proposals.

See you at ICON·S Santiago 2019!

Lorenzo Casini & Rosalind Dixon
Co-Presidents of ICON·S

Richard Albert, Gráinne de Búrca, Mariana Canales, Claudia Golden, Ran Hirschl, David Landau, Ruth Rubio Marin, Francisco Urbina, Cristián Valenzuela, Sergio Verdugo, Joseph Weiler and Fred Felix Zaumseil
Members of the ICON·S 2019 Organizing Committee



Print Friendly
Published on February 22, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Developments
 

I-CONnect Symposium on “The Euro-Crisis Ten Years Later: A Constitutional Appraisal”–Part III–Crisis and Tax Reforms in Greece: Towards Judicial Empowerment as a Means to Overcome Administrative Deficiencies

[Editor’s Note: This is the third entry in our symposium on the “The Euro-Crisis Ten Years Later: A Constitutional Appraisal.” The introduction to the symposium is available here, Part I is available here, and Part II is available here.]


Stylianos-Ioannis Koutnatzis, Democritus University of Thrace, Law School; and Georgios Dimitropoulos, HBKU College of Law & Public Policy and Centre for Law, Economics and Society, UCL

Greece’s financial crisis finds its origins in the private sector of a country on the other side of the Atlantic, by crossing the Atlantic, though, it moves from the private to the public sector; it becomes a crisis of public institutions, and eventually constitutional law, and the overall legal order. Among other consequences, in the implementation of the bailout programs, Greek parliamentary procedure was largely confined to rubberstamping the country’s international commitments; the ill-fated referendum of 2015 largely undermined the potential of direct democratic institutions; the pitfalls of social rights guarantees came to the fore.[1] This comment will focus on a distinct feature of the crisis that is usually overlooked: its importance for the constitutional dimension of tax law. 

Read the rest of this entry…
Print Friendly
Published on February 22, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Analysis
 

The Venezuelan Presidential Crisis

Rolando Seijas-Bolinaga, PhD Candidate, University of Cambridge

The leader of the Venezuelan National Assembly, Juan Guaidó, was sworn in as Venezuelan interim President before a crowd on one of Caracas’ largest avenues on January 23. A week before, Nicolas Maduro, was also sworn in as President before members of the Supreme Court. Are there now two presidents in Venezuela?

It is crucial to comprehend what happened in 2018 in order to understand the current situation. After the opposition won a resounding majority in the National Assembly (Venezuela’s Legislative body) in late 2015, then-President Maduro unilaterally convoked a Constituent Assembly that was designed to bypass the National Assembly in 2017. The Venezuelan Constituent Assembly was elected ignoring constitutional procedure, and half its members were not selected by universal suffrage. Not surprisingly this Constituent Assembly only has Maduro supporters as its members. Imagine that the president of the U.S calls for the election of a parallel Congress after losing a midterm election with the added layer that the new Congress will have the power to amend the Constitution, to remove any public official, and to set new electoral calendars: this was precisely Maduro’s strategy.

Read the rest of this entry…
Print Friendly
Published on February 21, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Developments
 

I-CONnect Symposium on “The Euro-Crisis Ten Years Later: A Constitutional Appraisal”–Part II: Budgetary Procedures under the Irish Constitution

[Editor’s Note: This is the second entry in our symposium on the “The Euro-Crisis Ten Years Later: A Constitutional Appraisal.” The introduction to the symposium is available here and Part I is available here.]


–Ailbhe O’Neill, Trinity College Dublin

Collins v. Minister for Finance [2016] IESC 73 required the Irish Supreme Court to explore for the first time since the founding of the State the role of the parliament in approving spending under Bunreacht na hÉireann. The case raised fundamental questions about the balance of power between institutions envisaged under the Constitution and the degree of discretion that can be validly delegated to and exercised by the executive in respect of expenditure.

The financial crisis in Ireland was precipitated by a property bubble and subsequent bursting of that bubble which left a number of systemically important banks insolvent. (For background, see Honohan, The Irish Banking Crisis Regulatory and Financial Stability Policy 2003-2008, 2010 Nyberg, Misjudging Risk: Causes of the Systemic Banking Crisis in Ireland).

In 2010, it became clear that there were significant capital shortfalls and that Anglo Irish Bank Corporation (“Anglo”) was unable to access liquidity funds from the Central Bank of Ireland’s emergency liquidity fund due to this insolvency. These shortfalls in Anglo’s funds had arisen as its assets (i.e. its property-backed loans) were transferred to the National Asset Management Agency, an entity established by the National Asset Management Agency Act 2008 with the express purpose of taking on such loans in an effort to work out the debt. Bearing in mind that the government had given a State guarantee of all debts of Irish banks pursuant to the Credit Institutions (Financial Support) Act 2008 (“the Act”) in 2008, it was imperative that this situation be stabilised.

Read the rest of this entry…
Print Friendly
Published on February 21, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Analysis
 

I-CONnect Symposium on “The Euro-Crisis Ten Years Later: A Constitutional Appraisal”–Part I: The Eurozone Crisis and the Rise of the Portuguese Constitutional Court

[Editor’s Note: This is the first entry in our symposium on the “The Euro-Crisis Ten Years Later: A Constitutional Appraisal.” The introduction to the symposium is available here.]


–Teresa Violante, Goethe University Frankfurt and Max-Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law

The story of how the Eurozone crisis was particularly harsh on Portugal is well known. Its most visible side concerns austerity policies particularly following the international loan agreed with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the European Commission (EC) and the European Central Bank (ECB). As the government’s report on the execution of the Adjustment Programme claimed, «these were the years of the deepest and most wide-reaching reforms in the history of our democracy».

Poverty increased near the most vulnerable parts of the population such as children and youngsters. Despite the entrenched belief that the least-off had been spared to the harshest consequences, a recent study shows that it was the poor who were most severely affected: whereas the highest incomes suffered an average decrease of 13%, the 10% lowest incomes endured a reduction of 25%.[1] General welfare and the provision of public services were also affected by increase in costs and cuts in their direct provision. Unemployment raised to the highest level registered under a democratic regime. From 7.6% in 2008 the figure skyrocketed to 16.2% in 2013 whereas the GDP decreased 7%. The budget deficit, on the contrary, decreased from 11% of the GDP in 2010 to 3% in 2017, when the Excessive Deficit Procedure against Portugal was finally closed.

The effects of the crisis are still unfolding.

Read the rest of this entry…
Print Friendly
Published on February 20, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Analysis
 

I-CONnect Symposium–The Euro-Crisis Ten Years Later: A Constitutional Appraisal–Introduction

[Editor’s Note: I-CONnect is pleased to feature a one-week symposium on the 10-year anniversary of the Euro crisis. We are grateful to our conveners–Professors Pietro Faraguna, Cristina Fasone, and Diletta Tega–for assembling a diverse group of scholars to explore this important moment in European history.]


Pietro Faraguna, University of Trieste; Cristina Fasone, University of Rome «LUISS Guido Carli»;  and Diletta Tega, University of Bologna

This I-CONnect symposium stems from a special section forthcoming in Quaderni costituzionali and features four posts concerning the impact of the Euro-crisis, ten years after the start of the subprime mortgage crisis in the US, on the four Eurozone countries that probably have been affected the most.

In fact, the year 2018 marked the end of the financial assistance programmes activated between 2010 and 2015 in favour of Ireland, Portugal, Spain Cyprus and Greece (which benefited from three rescue packages). These programmes were primarily financed through funds established within the European Union framework at large, by means of international agreements and having the Eurozone Member State as shareholders, as occurred in the case of the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) and of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM). To a lesser extent, the rescue of those Eurozone countries depended on the contribution of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that has lent 26 billion euro to Portugal, 22.5 billion euro to Ireland, 1 billion euro to Cyprus and over 60 billion euro to Greece on the whole. Financial assistance was also conceded through bilateral loans (also by non-Eurozone countries): 80 billion euro in the framework of the first rescue package to Greece and 4.8 billion euro to Portugal. In comparison with the IMF and the bilateral assistance, the loans provided through the “European funds” was more generous by far. The European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism (EFSM), the only fund purely financed by the Union budget and regulated by EU law, in particular by Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 of 11 May 2010, provided for financial assistance to Portugal and Ireland for 26 and 22.5 billion euro, respectively. The EFSF contributed to the rescue of Portugal with 26 billion euro, of Ireland with 17.7 billion and of Greece, in the context of the second package of financial assistance, for a good 144 billion euro. Finally, the ESM, still in operation unlike the other funds, lent Spain 41.3 billion, Cyprus 9 billion and Greece over 60 billion euro, just in between 2015 and 2018.

Read the rest of this entry…
Print Friendly
Published on February 19, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Analysis
 

What’s New in Public Law

Gaurav Mukherjee, S.J.D. Candidate in Comparative Constitutional Law, Central European University, Budapest

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 Supreme Court of Pakistan concluded hearings in the politically sensitive ‘Memogate’ matter which had been brought under its suo motu jurisdiction.
  2. Kenya’s High Court will rule this month on the validity of Section 162 of the Penal Code, which criminalizes gay sex.
  3. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the nonconsensual filming of 27 students between the ages of 14 and 18 by a school teacher was illegal, despite arguments that the students did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in school.
  4. The Constitutional Court of South Africa commenced hearings on whether the South African President is under a constitutional obligation to disclose reasons and a record for constituting or changing Cabinet.
  5. Thailand’s Constitutional Court announced that it will consider a ban on a party that nominated princess for prime minister, raising the prospect of a further set-back for opposition chances in a general election.
  6. In a blow for its institutional integrity, the Supreme Court of India summarily dismissed two court officials for allegedly tampering with an uploaded judicial order that wrongly created an impression that the industrialist Anil Ambani had been exempted from personal appearance in a contempt case.
  7. The High Court of Australia rejected an attempt to reopen a controversial ruling which effectively enabled indefinite immigration detention in Australia.
  8. The Supreme Court of India refused to monitor an ongoing federal investigation into the multi-crore Saradha chit fund scam in West Bengal, a state in Eastern India, which is being seen as a welcome development in a jurisdiction where judicial overreach is not unheard of.
  9. The German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) Germany’s supreme court for civil and criminal cases, held that booking cars for hire with professional drivers through the app Uber Black, the luxury chauffeur service, is prohibited.

In the News

  1. The Union Solidarity and Development Party in Myanmar put forward a bill to amend Article 261 of the Constitution that would, if approved, see regional chief ministers elected by local legislatures rather than appointed by the president.
  2. The Supreme Court of Spain began the trial of a dozen accused over their alleged roles in the Catalan independence crisis that pitched Spain into its worst political turmoil for four decades.
  3. Greece’s parliament voted to revise several articles in the country’s constitution, aiming to facilitate the prosecution of corrupt politicians, the prime minister’s office said.
  4. Donald Trump declared a national emergency in a bid to fund his promised wall at the U.S.-Mexico border without congressional approval, an action Democrats vowed to challenge as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Constitutional analysis of this development can be found here.
  5. The Egyptian Parliament approved sweeping measures that would allow President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi to extend his rule until 2034 and enshrining in law the military’s dominance over the country.
  6. African National Congress MP Thoko Didiza was elected as chairwoman of the ad-hoc committee established to amend section 25 of the South African Constitution to explicitly allow for the expropriation of land without compensation.
  7. The ruling Liberal Democratic Party in Japan adopted a concise plan for its goal of revising the nation’s pacifist Constitution at its annual convention, apparently in consideration of local and national elections later this year.
  8. Ukraine’s Parliament adopted amendments to the Constitution on Ukraine’s foreign policy on EU and NATO membership, providing for changes to the preamble of Ukraine’s Constitution, according to which, the parliament confirms the European identity of the Ukrainian nation and irreversibility of the European and Euro-Atlantic course of Ukraine.
  9. Human rights and education experts from around the world met in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire to adopt the Abidjan Principles which aim to “clarify existing legal obligations that States have regarding the delivery of education, and in particular the role and limitations of private actors in the provision of education”.
  10.  The Länd of Brandenburg became the first in Germany to pass an act on gender parity in politics, the goal of the Parity Act is to counter the current underrepresentation of women in the Parliament of Brandenburg, where they make up 38.6% of parliamentarians, even though they represent 51.02% of the population eligible to vote.

New Scholarship

  1. Vivek Maru and Varun Gauri (eds.), Community Paralegals and the Pursuit of Justice, 2018 (providing an account of community paralegals – sometimes called barefoot lawyers – who demystify law and empower people to advocate for themselves. The book focuses on paralegal movements in six countries, brings together rich, vivid stories of paralegals helping people to take on injustice, from domestic violence to unlawful mining to denial of wages).
  2. Saikrishna Bangalore Prakash, Of Synchronicity and Supreme Law, 132 Harvard Law Review 1220 (2019) (offering a comprehensive account of existing federal lawmaking practices as they relate to time. The article also considers how those timing practices have evolved over US history and argues that the Constitution requires some measure of synchronicity within each form of lawmaking.).
  3. Democracy Reporting International, La Mise en Oeuvre De La Constitution Tunisienne au Niveau du Cadre Juridique (2019) (reporting on the progress of the implementation of the Tunisian Constitution in the following areas: human rights, in particular civil and political rights; separation and balance of powers; the independence of the judiciary; accountability and transparency mechanisms; the establishment of independent constitutional bodies and decentralization) (in French and Arabic).
  4. Katharine S.E. Cresswell Riol, The Right to Food Guidelines, Democracy and Citizen Participation. Country case studies, 2019 (providing an an overview of the right to adequate food, accountability and democracy, and an introduction to the history of the development of the right to adequate food and the Right to Food Guidelines. The book also focuses on the effectiveness of the Right to Food Guidelines as both a policy-making and monitoring tool, based on the analysis of the guidelines and the BRICS states).
  5. Ellis M. West, The Free Exercise of Religion in America Its Original Constitutional Meaning, 2019 (providing a historic and jurisprudential analysis of the original meaning of the two religion clauses of the First Amendment of the US Constitution).
  6. The Harvard Law Review Board, An Abdication Approach to State Standing, 132 Harv. L. Rev. 1301 (2019) (putting forth an alternative approach to state standing in US constitutional law cases that would offer lasting access to judicial review in cases where the federal government has failed to meet its enforcement obligations under federal law, should the power of special solicitude be diminished).
  7. Panos Kapotas and Vassilis P. Tzevelekos (eds.), Building Consensus on European Consensus Judicial Interpretation of Human Rights in Europe and Beyond, 2019 (presenting essays based on three themes: a) conceptualization of European consensus, its modus operandi and its effects; b) critical evaluation of its legitimacy and of its outputs; c) comparison with similar methods of judicial interpretation in other legal systems).
  8. Pietro Faraguna, Regulating Religion in Italy. Constitution Does (not) Matter, 7(1) Journal of Law, Religion and State (2019) (focusing on state-church relations and on the peculiar implementation of the “idea of secularism” in Italy, while arguing that the transformation of the constitutional position of religion did not occur within the formal constitution, but in the “living constitution”).
  9. Jacques de Ville, Constitutional Theory: Schmitt after Derrida, Birbeck Law Press, 2019 (advancing a new reading of the central works of Carl Schmitt and, in so doing, rethinking the primary concepts of constitutional theory).
  10. The Harvard Law Review Board, Equal Dignity — Heeding Its Call, 132 Harv. L. Rev. 1323 (2019) (elaborating on the principles underlying equal dignity, discussing the specific doctrinal implications that equal dignity should have on substantive due process and equal protection inquiries, while also assessing whether lower courts have thus far properly heeded equal dignity’s call. The Note also argues that equal dignity should have particular salience to the growing judicial recognition of the rights of transgender individuals.
  11. B. C. Smith, Judges and Democratization. Judicial Independence in New Democracies, 2019 (examining the paradox of judicial activism arising from the independence endowed upon the judiciary by post-authoritarian constitutions. The book asks how, in the context of this endowed authority, such accountability can be made compatible with the preservation of judicial independence when the concept of an accountable, independent judiciary appears to be a contradiction in terms).
  12. Larry Barnett, Societal Agents in Law, 2019 (delving into the macro-sociological sources of law concerned with society, such as important social activities in a structurally complex, democratically governed nation. The book offers an alternative to the almost-total monopoly of theory and descriptive scholarship in the macrosociology of law, comparative law, and history of law, and underscores the value of a mixed empirical/theoretical approach).
  13. Kathryn McNeilly, Human Rights and Radical Social Transformation. Futurity, Alterity, Power, 2019 (seeking to reassess the radical possibilities for human rights and explore how rights may be re-engaged as a tool to facilitate radical social change via the concept of ‘human rights to come’. This idea proposes a reconceptualization of human rights in theory and practice which foregrounds human rights as inherently futural and capable of sustaining a critical relation to power and alterity in radical politics).

Call for Papers and Announcements

  1. The annual conference of the Australasian Society of Legal Philosophy (ASLP) will be hosted by the Julius Stone Institute of Jurisprudence at the University of Sydney on 18 – 19 July 2019. The ASLP welcomes philosophical or theoretically-oriented papers from any field of legal inquiry. Further details here
  2. Applications are invited for a full-time Research Fellow for the Access to Justice for Social Rights: Addressing the Accountability Gap project funded by the Nuffield Foundation, in the School of Law, University of Stirling. The Fellowship offers early career researchers the opportunity to lead and conduct research on the future of social rights protection across the UK.
  3. The Comparative Constitutions Project announced that Constitute en español is now live.
  4. The American Society of Comparative Law has issued a call for proposals for concurrent panels, and a works in progress conference to be held in association with the ASCL Annual Meeting on “Comparative Law and International Dispute Resolution Processes”.
  5. The Cluster of Excellence “Contestations of the Liberal Script” (SCRIPTS) at the Freie Universität Berlin, directed by Professor Tanja A. Börzel and Professor Michael Zürn, is offering up to four postdoctoral fellowships. Applications are sought in research areas in public law including challenges to global liberal constitutionalism from the rom European rightwing populism to African communitarianism to China’s economic system.
  6. The London School of Economics and Political Science, the WZB Berlin Social Science Center, and the European University Institute are pleased to invite submissions for the third European Junior Faculty Forum for Public Law and Jurisprudence to be held at the London School of Economics and Political Science on June 10-11, 2019. The deadline for submission is April 7, 2019.
  7. The WZB Berlin Social Science Center hosts on 6 July 2019 the Scholars Workshop: New Thinking Global Constitutionalism.
  8. Submissions are invited from comparative law scholars around the world for a works-in-progress roundtable on all subjects of comparative law at The University of Texas at Austin on May 21, 2019.

Elsewhere Online

  1. Kim Lane Scheppele, Trump’s Non-Emergency Emergency, Verfassungsblog, 15 February.
  2. Petra Bárd, To leave or not to leave? Viktor Orbán’s war against George Soros and the CEU dilemma, Reconnect Blog, 14 February
  3. Grégoire Webber and Paul Yowell, Legislated Rights: Symposium, Judicial Power Project, 14 February 2019 (all six posts from the symposium on the Webber- Yowell book can be found in the hyperlink).
  4. Leah Litman, The Substance of the Supreme Court’s Procedure, Take Care, 13 February.
  5. Mercy Muendo, Kenya plans to place public security above data privacy. That’s a bad idea, The Conversation, 12 February
  6. Yuvraj Joshi, Affirmative Action Is About to Face a Judicial Assault, Slate, 12 February
  7. Leah Litman, Justice Kavanaugh Said No On Roe, Take Care, 11 February.
  8. Federico Fabbrini, Brexit: Through the Looking Glass, Oxford Constitutional Law, February 2019
  9. Nancy Agutu, Why Kenyan Deputy President Ruto prefers an official opposition to the creation of post of prime minister, Constitution Net, 11 February
  10. David R. Cameron, EU doesn’t budge on Irish “backstop” but talks resume on future relationship, Yale MacMillan Centre, 11 February
  11. Joaquín Urías, The Spanish Model of Democracy Facing Trial, Verfassungsblog, 11February.
  12. National Constitution Center, How a national tragedy led to the 25th amendment, National Constitution Center, 11 February
  13. Colm McCarthy, Why Referendums in Ireland Work Better than in the UK, Verfassungsblog, 11February.
  14. Louis Menand, The Supreme Court Case That Enshrined White Supremacy in Law, The New Yorker, 4 February
  15. Trésor M. Makunya, An agenda for constitutional reform in Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), ConstitutionNet, 5 February
  16. Zachary Elkins, Compared with what? How to Read the Cuban Constitutional Reforms, Medium, 6 February
Print Friendly
Published on February 18, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Developments
 

Invitation to Friends of I-CONnect: Conference on “The Future of Liberal Democracy” at the University of Texas Law School

Richard Albert, William Stamps Farish Professor of Law, The University of Texas at Austin

Along with my faculty colleague Sanford Levinson, I am hosting an international conference on The Future of Liberal Democracy, later this week here at the University of Texas at Austin. All are invited to attend.

The program will feature many members of the International Society of Public Law, including a current Co-President, a former Co-President, and the current Deputy Secretary-General, in addition to many regular attendees at the ICON-S Annual Conference.

The conference is prompted by the observation that liberal democracy is under attack in many countries across the globe and under stress in several others. Thirty scholars from around the world will gather to diagnose what ails liberal democracy and also to discuss what can be done to save it.

Panelists will examine the erosion of constraints executive power, the growing practice of constitutional replacement by constitutional amendment, as well as legal and political strategies for managing difference and diversity. In addition, panelists will discuss two questions: (1) Is the Trump phenomenon an instance of American exceptionalism or is it part of larger global trend?; and (2) Is illiberal constitutionalism an oxymoron?

The full program is available here. The list of participants is available here. And details on travel and accommodation are available here.

All are welcome to attend.

Print Friendly
Published on February 17, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Developments
 

Constitutional Retrogression in Indonesia

–Abdurrachman Satrio, Researcher at the Center for State Policy Studies, Faculty of Law, Padjadjaran University

Constitutional retrogression, as defined by Aziz Huq and Tom Ginsburg, occurs when democratically elected rulers use formal legal measures to undermine democracy gradually.[1] In this post, I will argue that Indonesia – the most stable democratic country in Southeast Asia – has undergone constitutional retrogression in the era of President Joko Widodo’s government.[2]

Read the rest of this entry…
Print Friendly
Published on February 15, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Analysis
 

Five Questions with Elaine Mak

Richard Albert, William Stamps Farish Professor of Law, The University of Texas at Austin

In “Five Questions” here at I-CONnect, we invite a public law scholar to answer five questions about his or her research. 

This edition of “Five Questions” features a short video interview with Elaine Mak, Professor of Jurisprudence and Vice-Dean for Education at the Faculty of Law, Economics and Governance at Utrecht University. 

One of her most recent publications is her inaugural lecture as a chaired professor. It is entitled “The T-Shaped Lawyer and Beyond: Rethinking Legal Professionalism and Legal Education for Contemporary Societies,” available here.

To nominate someone for a future edition of “Five Questions,” please email contact.iconnect@gmail.com.

Print Friendly
Published on February 14, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Reviews