—Simon Drugda, PhD Candidate at the University of Copenhagen On January 30, 2019, the Slovak Constitutional Court declared a constitutional amendment unconstitutional. The Court held that the Constitution contains an implicit material core that cannot be changed through the ordinary amendment process. Consequently, if an amendment violates a core provision, it will be struck down.
—Jill Goldenziel, Marine Corps University-Command and Staff College; Fox Leadership International Affiliated Scholar, University of Pennsylvania. Professor Goldenziel’s views do not represent those of her University or any other arm of the U.S. Government. [Editor’s note: This is one of our biweekly I-CONnect columns. Columns, while scholarly in accordance with the tone of the blog
—Rivka Weill, Harry Radzyner Law School, IDC Within the first twenty-four hours after the Israeli election, the future political partners of PM Netanyahu raised the demand to enact a general override clause as part of the Basic Laws. They believe that this override clause will empower them to govern without the intervention of the High
–P. Y. Lo, LLB (Lond.), Ph D (HKU), Barrister-at-law, Gilt Chambers, Hong Kong In Part 1 of this two-part post, I discussed the constitutional instruction in Article 23 of the Basic Law of Hong Kong obliging the Hong Kong authorities to enact legislation to safeguard the national security of Hong Kong’s sovereign, the People’s Republic
–P. Y. Lo, LLB (Lond.), Ph D (HKU), Barrister-at-law, Gilt Chambers, Hong Kong. Richard Albert and Joel Colón-Rios’ edited volume on Quasi-Constitutionality and Constitutional Statutes (Routledge 2019) considers a variety of means by which a statute can become or be treated as “entrenched”, “constitutionally significant” or otherwise having a “constitutional status”. This can be because,
[Editor’s Note: This is the concluding post for the joint I-CONnect/IACL-AIDC Blog symposium on “towering judges,” which emerged from a conference held earlier this year at The Chinese University of Hong Kong, organized by Professors Rehan Abeyratne (CUHK) and Iddo Porat (CLB). The introduction to the joint symposium can be found here.] —Iddo Porat, College of Law and Business, Israel
[Editor’s Note: This is part of the joint I-CONnect/IACL-AIDC Blog symposium on “towering judges,” which emerged from a conference held earlier this year at The Chinese University of Hong Kong, organized by Professors Rehan Abeyratne (CUHK) and Iddo Porat (CLB). The author in this post formed part of a panel on “Towering Judges in Transitional/Non-Liberal Constitutions.” The introduction to
[Editor’s Note: This is part of the joint I-CONnect/IACL-AIDC Blog symposium on “towering judges,” which emerged from a conference held earlier this year at The Chinese University of Hong Kong, organized by Professors Rehan Abeyratne (CUHK) and Iddo Porat (CLB). The author in this post formed part of a panel on “Towering Judges in Transformative Constitutions.” The introduction to
[Editor’s Note: This is part of the joint I-CONnect/IACL-AIDC Blog symposium on “towering judges,” which emerged from a conference held earlier this year at The Chinese University of Hong Kong, organized by Professors Rehan Abeyratne (CUHK) and Iddo Porat (CLB). The author in this post formed part of a panel on “Towering Judges in New/Mixed Constitutions.” The introduction to
[Editor’s Note: This is part of the joint I-CONnect/IACL-AIDC Blog symposium on “towering judges,” which emerged from a conference held earlier this year at The Chinese University of Hong Kong, organized by Professors Rehan Abeyratne (CUHK) and Iddo Porat (CLB). The authors in this post formed part of a panel on “Towering Judges in New/Mixed Constitutions.” The introduction to
Welcome to I·CONnect: the blog of the International Journal of Constitutional Law.
A letter from the Editor-in-Chief of I·CON
Welcome message from Tom Ginsburg
Editorial Director, I·CON: J. H. H. Weiler
Editors, I·CONnect: Richard Albert,
Tom Ginsburg and David Landau
EJIL: Talk!
