Month: May 2014
-
Australia–The High Court Upholds the Forfeiture of a Drug Offender’s Castle: Attorney-General (NT) v Emmerson
—Dr. Lael Weis, Melbourne Law School [Cross-posted from Opinions on High Court Blog] Should the state be able to seize ‘all or any’ property ‘owned or controlled by’ persons convicted of multiple drug-related offences, regardless of the connection of that property to the commission of crime?
-
What’s New in Comparative Public Law
–Margaret Lan Xiao, Visiting Scholar, East Asian Legal Studies Center, UW-Madison Law School EALSC In this weekly feature, I-CONnect publishes a curated reading list of developments in comparative public law. “Developments” may include a selection of links to news, high court decisions, new or recent scholarly books and articles, and blog posts from around the comparative public law blogosphere.
-
Book Review/Response: Maartje de Visser and Laurent Pech on Comparative Constitutional Review in Europe
[Editor’s Note: In this installment of I•CONnect’s Book Review/Response Series, Laurent Pech reviews Maartje de Visser’s recent book on Constitutional Review in Europe: A Comparative Analysis. Maartje de Visser then responds to the review.] Review by Laurent Pech –Laurent Pech, Professor of European Law and Head of the Law Department, Middlesex University London[1] Let’s not beat around the bush.
-
What’s New in Comparative Public Law
–Angelique Devaux, French Licensed Attorney (Notaire) In this weekly feature, I-CONnect publishes a curated reading list of developments in comparative public law. “Developments” may include a selection of links to news, high court decisions, new or recent scholarly books and articles, and blog posts from around the comparative public law blogosphere.
-
How “Islamic” is Pakistan’s Constitution?
–Dawood Ahmed, University of Chicago During peace negotiations with the Tehreek-e-Taliban (TTP) in Pakistan, Taliban leaders declared that they did not accept the Constitution of Pakistan as “Islamic” and therefore did not believe in holding peace talks under it. Indeed, they alleged that there was not a single Islamic clause in the Constitution.
-
Naz Foundation III
—Rosalind Dixon, Professor of Law, UNSW Australia Faculty of Law; Rishad Chowdhury, Partner, Verus Advocates, Delhi. The Indian Supreme Court is soon likely to hear Curative Petitions challenging its judgment in the Naz Foundation case [available at http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=41070], which reversed the judgment of the Delhi High Court partially striking down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (and thus, effectively, re-criminalized private, consensual sexual intercourse by gay men).
-
Mind the Gap – The CJEU Google Spain Judgment Profoundly Challenges the Current Realities of Freedom of Expression and Information Online
—David Erdos, University of Cambridge [Cross-posted from UK Constitutional Law Blog] The European Union Data Protection Directive of 1995 has always had lofty, and in many ways implausible, ambitions. As regards the private sector, it seeks to outlaw the input, storage or other processing on computer of any information relating to a living individual “data subject” (irrespective of whether the information is innocuous and/or widely available in the public domain) unless in each and every case that processing complies with a set of provisions put in place to ensure the protection of “the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons, and in particular their right to privacy” (Art.
-
What’s New in Comparative Public Law
–Mohamed Abdelaal, Alexandria University (Egypt) In this weekly feature, I-CONnect publishes a curated reading list of developments in comparative public law. “Developments” may include a selection of links to news, high court decisions, new or recent scholarly books and articles, and blog posts from around the comparative public law blogosphere.
-
Constitutions…in Dictatorships?
[cross posted from the Cambridge University Press blog 1584] “What is the difference,” went an old joke in the Soviet Union, “between the Soviet and U.S. Constitutions? The Soviet Constitution guarantees freedom of speech; the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom after speech.”