magnify

I·CONnect

Blog of the International Journal of Constitutional Law

Special Discount–New Book–“Constitutional Reform of National Legislatures: Bicameralism under Pressure”

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

I-CONnect is pleased to share a special 35% discount code for our readers interested in a new book entitled Constitutional Reform of National Legislatures: Bicameralism under Pressure (Edward Elgar, 2019), edited by Richard Albert (Texas), Antonia Baraggia (Milan), and Cristina Fasone (LUISS).

To order this book at the discount rate, enter code RALB35 at checkout here.

Here is the book’s description:

What makes bicameral reform so difficult? Why choose bicameralism over unicameralism? What are the constitutional values of bicameralism? This innovative book addresses these questions and many more from comparative, doctrinal, empirical, historical and theoretical perspectives.

Featuring contributions from leading and emerging scholars in the field, this book provides a timely account of the tensions between bicameralism and its reform, demonstrating for the first time how this relates to the protection of liberal democracy and the rule of law. Contributors analyse the pressures that contemporary constitutional politics exert on bicameralism in an array of countries and legal systems, including the complex relationships between the EU and national second chambers.

And here are the contents of the volume:

Foreword

Bicameralism in an Age of Populism
Meg Russell

Introduction

1. The Challenge of Reforming Bicameralism
Richard Albert, Antonia Baraggia and Cristina Fasone

Part I–Theories and Challenges to Bicameralism: Multi-tiered Government Systems and the EU

2. Bicameralism. Multiple Theoretical Roots in Diverging Practices
Maria Romaniello

3. ‘Visible’ and ‘Invisible’ Second Chambers in Unitary States. ‘Territorialising’ National Legislatures in Italy and the United Kingdom
Barbara Guastaferro

4. How Does the European Union Challenge Bicameralism? Lessons from the Italian Case
Pietro Faraguna

5. The Scrutiny of EU Documents in Bicameral System. Opportunity or Weakness?
Wouter Wolfs and Caterina Cigala

6. The House of Lords faces up to Brexit
Peter Leyland

7. Bicameralism in Multi-tiered Systems
Patricia Popelier

Part II–Challenging Unicameralism

8. The Shadow of Bicameralism in a Unicameral State: Dispersed Functional Bicameralism in Bulgaria?
Mihail Vatsov and Polina Vakleva

9. Defending Bicameralism and Equalizing Powers: the Case of Peru
Diego Serra

10. The Failed Referendum to Abolish the Ireland’s Senate: Rejecting Unicameralism in a Small and Relatively Homogenous Country
David Kenny

11. Unicameralism and “Masked” Bicameralism
Cristina Fasone

Part III–Reforming or Abolishing the Upper House?

12. The Sénat Français of the Fifth Republic: The Permanent Paradox
Priscilla Jensel Monge

13. The Future of Poland’s Second Chamber: Is the Senate Still Needed?
Katarzyna Granat

14. Reshaping the National Council of the Republic of Slovenia
Dušan Štrus

15. Bicameralism(s) in the Age of Ethnicity: Prospects for Reform of Legislatures in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Nedim Kulenović

16. Bicameralism As a Normative Choice In the Tension Between Its Reform and Its Passing
Giovanni Piccirilli

Conclusion

What Are We To Make of Bicameralism in the Twentieth-First Century? The Reform Trap
Cristina Fasone

Print Friendly
Published on September 26, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Developments
 

Showcase–New Directions in Administrative Law Research: The Distinction between Constitutional and Administrative Law


[Editor’s Note: This is the final entry in an eight-part Showcase on new ideas in administrative law theory. The introductory post is available here.]


–Farrah Ahmed, University of Melbourne

Are constitutional and administrative law distinguishable? If so, how? These questions are often met with indifference or scepticism. In the UK it is said that “the dividing line between constitutional and administrative law [is] hard to locate and somewhat artificial” and that “[t]he twofold division of public law (into constitutional and administrative law) is of no great significance.” In the US, scholarship blurs the boundary between constitutional and administrative law. In South Africa, complex connections between administrative law and constitutional text and principle make untangling the two challenging. In India the expansive interpretation of ‘Fundamental Rights’ has obscured the distinctive nature of administrative law norms.

Are constitutional and administrative law distinguishable? If so, how? These questions are often met with indifference or scepticism. In the UK it is said that “the dividing line between constitutional and administrative law [is] hard to locate and somewhat artificial” and that “[t]he twofold division of public law (into constitutional and administrative law) is of no great significance.” In the US, scholarship blurs the boundary between constitutional and administrative law. In South Africa, complex connections between administrative law and constitutional text and principle make untangling the two challenging. In India the expansive interpretation of ‘Fundamental Rights’ has obscured the distinctive nature of administrative law norms.

Read the rest of this entry…
Print Friendly
Published on September 24, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Analysis
 

Observations on the Supreme Court’s Miller and Cherry Hearings


Theodore Konstadinides, Professor of Law, University of Essex

The Miller / Cherry legal battle last week lingered between the tectonic plates of the political and the legal. It was three days of carefully defined legal terms, extended and masterful advocacy combined with awkward pauses, grimaces of disbelief, and phrases that baffled non-lawyers. Both prior and during the hearing we heard from the Prime Minister that the Supreme Court must not involve itself in the political. A barrage of questions was accordingly hurled at the Miller appellants and Cherry respondents by Sir Eadie (on behalf of the Prime Minister) and Lord Keen (AG for Scotland) that must have made even the best of law students query what relevant principles of public law should apply in these appeals. Both barristers skillfully warned the Supreme Court not to trespass into forbidden territory and question proceedings in Parliament out of Parliament. To do so would be in breach of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689 expressly prohibiting such intervention. Millions of members of the public watching on live-stream or in the overflown courts must have wondered whether it is perhaps too abstract (or academic) to ask judges to determine how long is too long when the Prime Minister decides to suspend Parliament? Similarly, can we expect judges in their wisdom to deduce the motive (malign or not) behind the Prime Minister’s advice to the Queen to prorogue Parliament for five weeks?

Read the rest of this entry…
Print Friendly
Published on September 23, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Developments
 

What’s New in Public Law

–Nausica Palazzo, Lecturer in Public Law, Bocconi University

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. UK Supreme Court is to rule next week on Parliament shutdown.
  2. The Court of Justice of the EU started hearing Apple and Ireland’s appeal against the EU Commission’s 14 billion tax bill.
  3. Romania’s Constitutional Court ruled that the President of the Republic must accept the nominations of interim ministers by PM Dancila, as within the PM’s prerogatives.
  4. Turkey Constitutional Court ruled that the broadcast ban on news related to the criminal investigation against former ministers violates freedom of press.
  5. The Constitutional Court of Thailand dismissed a constitutional challenge against the PM for his failure to recite the full oath, especially the sentence whereby he commits himself to abide by the constitution.
  6. The Nelson Mandela Foundation lodged a constitutional complaint against AfriForum’s “provocative” tweet of an apartheid flag, whose display constitutes hate speech following last week’s Equality Court’s decision.
  7. The Constitutional Court of Jordan ruled that a contract entered by a national company and Israel does not require parliamentary approval.
  8. The Constitutional Court of South Africa ruled that parents cannot use corporal punishment at home.
  9. Zimbabwe’s law on the functioning of the Constitutional Court, implementing the 2013 constitution, goes into effect.
  10. The President of Albania explains to the Venice Commission the reasons for the 18 months long inactivity of the Constitutional Court.

In the News

  1. Turkey, Russia and Iran announced that an agreement on the committee that will rewrite Syria’s constitution was reached.
  2. Algeria’s interim president called the presidential elections with a view to overcoming the political crisis.
  3. The ICC prosecutor appealed the ICC’s decision to acquit former Ivory Coast president, accused of starting a civil war after losing the elections. Notice of appeal here.
  4. An Armenian court rejects former President Kocharian’s motion to end pretrial detention.
  5. Former Italy’s PM Renzi formed a breakaway party, thereby potentially engendering the stability of the new coalition government.
  6. Liberia’s President endorses a war crimes court to investigate the crimes committed during Liberia’s civil wars.
  7. The US sued Snowden for breaking non-disclosure agreement with CIA and NSA when writing his book.
  8. New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern introduced a bill to strengthen the nation’s gun laws, after the Christchurch attacks.
  9. A US same-sex couple sued the US State Department for treating them as “unmarried” thereby denying their child, born in Canada through surrogacy, US citizenship.

New Scholarship

  1. Antonina Bakardjieva Engelbrekt, Xavier Groussot, The Future of Europe: Political and Legal Integration Beyond Brexit (Hart Publishing, 2019) (addressing the institutional challenges ahead for the European Union, with a special focus on rule of law and security)
  2. Alysia Blackham, Miriam Kullmann, Ania Zbyszewska, Theorising Labour Law in a Changing World: Towards Inclusive Labour Law (Hart Publishing, 2019) (providing a more inclusive theory of labor law by bringing together various disciplines, including industrial relations, political economy, gender studies and regulatory theory)
  3. Ingrid V. Eagly, The Movement to Decriminalize Border Crossing, 61 Boston College Law Review (forthcoming) (exploring the growing resistance to border criminalization in the United States and the proposed reforms that would reconstitute border crossing as a civil violation of immigration law)
  4. Laura M. Henderson, The Promise and Peril of Designing a Radical Democratic Populism, in Ingeborg van der Geest, Henrike Jansen & Bart van Klink (eds.), Vox Populi: Populism as a Rhetorical and Democratic Challenge (Edgar Elgar, forthcoming) (analyzing radical democracy’s turn to a populist rhetorical strategy, and what populist politics should do to be compatible with radical democracy)
  5. Andras Jakab, What Can Constitutional Law Do Against the Erosion of Democracy and the Rule of Law? On the Interconnectedness of the Protection of Democracy and the Rule of Law Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law & International Law (MPIL) Research Paper No. 2019-15. (presenting a list of tips and tricks on how to stop the populist tide through constitutional law)
  6. Zachary Kramer, Outsiders: Why Difference is the Future of Civil Rights (Oxford University Press, 2019) (advancing two proposals to align civil rights law to increasingly individualized forms of discrimination)
  7. Lorne Neudorf, Separating Powers through the Constitution: A Comparison of India and Australia (2019) (examining the separation of powers in India and Australia to better understand the idea of separating powers more generally, especially in relation to how it takes shape and operates in different legal systems)
  8. Lewis D. Sargentich, Liberal Legality: A Unified Theory of our Law (Cambridge University Press, 2019) (exploring what rule-based law and policy-based law have in common and proposing a novel conception of the rule of law based on a commitment to what the Author calls “liberal legality”)

Calls for Papers and Announcements

  1. The Constitution Unit set up a Working Group on unification referendums on the Island of Ireland examining how any future referendum on Northern Ireland’s status would be conducted. The members of the Working Group are keen to hear from anyone with views on the matters they are examining.
  2. UCD Sutherland School of Law is seeking one post-doctoral fellow and six PhD students for a forthcoming European Research Council-funded project on the socio-political factors leading to populism in selected case studies. The deadline for the post-doc position is September 27, 2019. The deadline for PhD positions Oct. 1, 2019.
  3. Emory University School of Law seeks to fill a named professorship in international law beginning in the 2020-2021 academic year. Applications will be considered on a rolling basis.
  4. European University Institute seeks to hire a Director for its School of Transnational Governance (deadline for receipt of applications: October 30, 2019) and chairs in transnational governance (deadline for receipt of applications: October 28, 2019).
  5. The Touro College, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center is seeking applicants for two tenure-track appointments to its full-time faculty starting in August 2020. Subject areas of particular interest include Constitutional Law, Evidence, Property, and Torts. The application must be submitted here.
  6. The Common Market Law Review invites scholars to attend the conference “A Cultural and Identity-related Shift in European Union Law?”, to be held on October 11, 2019 in Paris. The conference program can be found here.
  7. The Federalist Society launched this year’s Article I Initiative Writing Contest on the on Nondelegation Doctrine in the United States. The contest is open to individuals under age 40. Entries must be received on or before Monday, January 7, 2020.
  8. The editor of the book “Personal Data Protection and Legal Developments in the European Union” (Maria Tzanou) issued a call for chapters. The book will be published by IGI Global, an international publisher of progressive academic research. The deadline to submit chapter proposals is October 18, 2019.

Elsewhere Online

  1. Brian Christopher Jones, Panel Numbers: From “Court Packing” to “Institution Building”, UK Constitutional Law Blog
  2. Sepideh Afshar, Bill 21: Impractical on paper and in practice, The McGill Tribune
  3. Supreme Court challenge over Boris Johnson’s suspension of parliament, Channel 4 News on Youtube
  4. Mike Eckel, Change the Russian Constitution? Might Be a Good Idea, Says Putin Confidant, Radio Free Europe
  5. Erik Røsæg, Maritime rescue operations in the Mediterranean, PluriCourts Blog
  6. Makena Kelly, Facebook’s ‘Supreme Court’ can overrule Zuckerberg, per new charter, The Verge
  7. Tom Hals, Kristina Cooke, Explainer: U.S. enacts sweeping new asylum bar following Supreme Court decision, Reuters
  8. Kees Sterk, Frans van Dijk, Protecting the Independence of National Councils of the Judiciary on the EU Level, Verfassungsblog
  9. Tomiwa Ilori, A human rights approach to internet taxes in Africa, AfricLaw
  10. Alexandra Tomaselli & L. Mariana Olvera Colin, What’s next to preserve the linguistic richness of Indigenous Peoples?, Völkerrechtsblog
  11. Andrea McArdle, The Fair Housing Act in the Trump Era: A Proposed Agency Rule Will Seriously Dilute Disparate-Impact Liability, OxHRH Blog
  12. Estera Flieger, The populist rewriting of Polish history is a warning to us all, The Guardian
  13. Maria Chr. Alvanou, 9/11 Trials Will Shape Global Terrorism, Jurist
Print Friendly
Published on September 23, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Developments
 

Showcase–New Directions in Administrative Law Theory: Administrative Law Theory and Empirical Research


[Editor’s Note: This is the seventh entry in an eight-part Showcase on new ideas in administrative law theory. The introductory post is available here.]


–Sarah Nason, Prifysgol Bangor University

Studies examining empirical dimensions of administrative law have grown up in parallel too, but largely disconnected from, theoretical work. Some suggests that contemporary preoccupation both with theory and empiricism is part of a trend away from traditional doctrinal scholarship in administrative law, perhaps due to dissatisfaction with the limits of common law method.

Elsewhere I have developed a constructivist methodology that attempts to meaningfully bring together administrative law theory and empirical evidence. The facts relied upon have largely been those about who issues cases and defends them, who their lawyers are, the topics of claims and their outcomes. Here I begin to examine how we can use judgments as empirical evidence, and what this might contribute to administrative law theory.

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

Showcase–New Directions in Administrative Law Theory: Non-Statutory Executive Powers in the Commonwealth Constitutional Family


[Editor’s Note: This is the sixth entry in an eight-part Showcase on new ideas in administrative law theory. The introductory post is available here.]


–J.G. Allen, Humboldt University of Berlin Centre for British Studies, University of Tasmania Faculty of Law

The nature and source of non-statutory executive powers has increased in importance in recent decades in many constitutional orders, not least in response to the changing modalities of administration (particularly “contracting out”), risk politics, and emergency. 

In the UK and Commonwealth context, the question of non-statutory powers is couched in terms of the capacities of the Crown; in other contexts, it is framed in terms of the State, for which the Crown has (for better or worse) been a stand-in.[1] While the core question is the similar, the UK and Commonwealth context demands a unique, historically-inflected idiom. This makes the debate obscure in certain respects, but in others provides a welcome link to the some of the classical sources in political theory. Prerogative, raison d’Etat, and emergency are never remote. 

My view is that we should approach this difficult area of law by first addressing the problem of official action. When we speak of the Crown (or the State) doing anything, what we actually mean is that some individual occupying a certain type of institutionalised social role has done something, in circumstances such that we attribute her actions to the Crown (or the State).[2] In my contribution to this workshop, a chapter in a forthcoming book The Judicial Review of Official Action, I set out why I think this starting point helps to avoid muddled thinking about non-statutory powers. 

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

I·CON Volume 17, Issue 3: Editorial

On My Way Out – Advice to Young Scholars VI: WeakPoint, On the Uses and Abuses of PowerPoint

I have most certainly reached the final phase of my academic and professional career and as I look back I want to offer, for what it is worth, some dos and don’ts on different topics to younger scholars in the early phases of theirs. This is the sixth instalment and regards that staple of academic life: PowerPoint.

There is a concept in Jewish law called “Fencing.” (Seyag). It is a prophylactic; a new prohibition is decreed, which is not, in and of itself, biblically based but is introduced in the interest of protecting people from inadvertently committing an infraction of a divine commandment or in order to prevent people from entering into a danger zone of temptation. Here is a trivial example: the recitation of one’s nightly prayers can (and should) take place during the night. Night time lasts, surely, until daybreak – just before dawn. One o’clock in the morning is surely still night time. The Rabbis decreed a “Fence” and fixed a deadline of midnight. “A man”, they reasoned, “will return home, and say to himself: I’ll eat a little bit, and drink a little bit, and sleep a little bit – and then recite my prayers. [After all, I have all night ahead of me]. He ends up sleeping all night and missing his nightly prayers.”

I have imposed on myself a Fence: No PowerPoint at all (for that matter, no FaceBook, Twitter or Instagram). It is an extreme (im)position, which I am not suggesting others should adopt. However, I am advocating a far more prudent and discerning use of PowerPoint.

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

ICON’s Latest Issue: Table of Contents

Volume 17 Issue 3

Table of Contents

Editorial

Articles

Bosko Tripkovic, The morality of foreign law

Critical Review of Governance

Ngoc Son Bui, Constitutional amendment in Laos

Farrah Ahmed, Richard Albert and Adam Perry, Judging constitutional conventions

Symposium: Weak-form Review in Comparative Perspective

Mark Tushnet, Weak-form review: An introduction

Swati Jhaveri, Interrogating dialogic theories of judicial review

Po Jen Yap and Francis Chung, Statutory rights and de facto constitutional supremacy in Hong Kong?

Kent Roach, Dialogic remedies

Scott Stephenson, Is the Commonwealth’s approach to rights constitutionalism exportable?

Rosalind Dixon, The forms, functions, and varieties of weak(ened) judicial review

Stephen Gardbaum, Weak-form review in comparative perspective: A reply

ICON: Debate!

Hèctor López Bofill, Hubris, constitutionalism, and “the indissoluble unity of the Spanish nation”: The repression of Catalan secessionist referenda in Spanish constitutional law

Antonio Bar, Hubris, constitutionalism, and “the indissoluble unity of the Spanish nation”: A reply to Hèctor López Bofill

Hèctor López Bofill, Hubris, constitutionalism, and “the indissoluble unity of the Spanish nation”: A rejoinder to Antonio Bar

Review Essay

Jan Komárek, Rethinking constitutionalism and democracy . . .  again? Review of Dieter Grimm. The Constitution of European Democracy; Athanasios Psygkas. From the “Democratic Deficit” to a “Democratic Surplus”: Constructing Administrative Democracy in Europe; Turkuler Isiksel. Europe’s Functional Constitution: A Theory of Constitutionalism Beyond the State.

Book Reviews

Note from the I.CON Editors

Katalin Kelemen. Judicial Dissent in European Constitutional Courts. A Comparative and Legal Perspective (Eszter Bodnár)

Christine Landfried (ed.). Judicial Power: How Constitutional Courts Affect Political Transformations (Johann Laux)

Julieta Lemaitre Ripoll.El Estado siempre llega tarde: La Reconstrucción de la Vida Cotidiana después de la Guerra (Jorge González-Jácome)

Olivier Beaud & Cécile Guérin-Bargues.L’état d’urgence, Une étude constitutionnelle, historique et critique (Rui Miguel Pereira)

Print Friendly
Published on September 18, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Editorials
 

Showcase–New Directions in Administrative Law Theory: The Pardon Paradox


[Editor’s Note: This is the fifth entry in an eight-part Showcase on new ideas in administrative law theory. The introductory post is available here.]


–Adam Perry, University of Oxford

Almost every constitution in the world confers a power to pardon.  Pardon powers are found in the constitutions of old states and new states, Western states and non-Western states, states with a Christian tradition and states without one. Pardon powers are part of the constitutions of states as diverse as France, Indonesia, Peru, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Pardon powers share several features. First, the exercise of the power has the result of lifting or lessening criminal liability. Second, the power achieves this result not by changing the law, but by setting it aside in a particular case. Third, the power is held by a branch of government other than the judiciary – the executive, normally, or the legislature, less commonly. Finally, in its traditional mould, a pardon power is wholly arbitrary. Its use is unreviewable and unconstrained. (For recent departures from this traditional form of the pardon power, see my post here.)

So understood, pardon powers seem to conflict with two of the most basic principles of constitutionalism. Contrary to the separation of powers, a pardon power gives to a branch of government other than the judiciary a role in determining criminal liability in particular cases. Contrary to the rule of law, a pardon power is traditionally neither controlled by nor ruled by law. 

Hence the *pardon paradox*: one of the most common constitutional power is at odds with some of the most fundamental constitutional principles. Pardon powers are everywhere but seem to properly belong nowhere. I argue that the paradox has a solution. Appearances notwithstanding, pardon powers threaten neither the separation of powers nor the rule of law. My argument has three steps.

Read the rest of this entry…
Print Friendly
Published on September 17, 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 European Court of Human Rights issued notice to the government of Poland on the basis of a complaint brought by an applicant company about the appointment of one judge in particular to the Constitutional Court which examined its case, and is now the second application to be communicated to the Government of Poland raising an issue related to changes in the judiciary. Communication available here.
  2. The Jammu and Kashmir People’s Conference filed a plea, one of many brought by political parties from the region, in the Supreme Court of India challenging the constitutionality of the Union Government’s abrogation of provisions in the Indian Constitution which guaranteed Jammu and Kashmir autonomy.
  3. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Trump administration may enforce new rules that generally forbid asylum applications from migrants who have traveled through another country on their way to the United States without being denied asylum in that country. Order available here.
  4. The First Division, Inner House, Court of Session of Scotland ruled that UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament was unlawful. Judgment here.
  5. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has made Zukisa Tshiqi and Steven Majiedt his first appointments to the Constitutional Court of South Africa.
  6. The High Court of Kenya ruled that a high school in Nairobi had violated the petitioner’s constitutional right to freedom of religion by asking her to shave her dreadlocks, which she claimed was required by her Rastafarian faith.
  7. The Constitutional Court of Zambia adjourned the hearing of an application by the Law Association of Zambia for an injunction to prevent Parliament from proceeding to receive submissions and debate a set of controversial amendments to the Constitution. 
  8. The Supreme Court of India agreed to hear public interest litigation seeking directions to set up community kitchens in order to address reports of increasing deaths across the country on account of malnutrition.

In the News

  1. The Equality Court of South Africa held that the gratuitous display of the country’s apartheid era flag constitutes, inter alia, ‘hate speech’ and ‘harassment’ as understood in the provisions of the Equality Act, 2000. Judgment here.
  2. The Advocate General advised the Supreme Court of the Netherlands to uphold the Hague Court of Appeal’s 2015 decision in the Urgenda case where it concluded that by failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% by end-2020, the Dutch government had acting unlawfully in contravention of its duty of care under Articles 2 and 8 of the ECHR. Commentary on the 2015 case can be found here.
  3. The High Court of Belfast dismissed claims that a no-deal Brexit and the imposition of a hard border would damage the Northern Ireland peace process.
  4. A judge of the Quebec Superior Court struck down a clause that required patients’ natural deaths to be “reasonably foreseeable” in a federal assisted-dying law the as unconstitutional.
  5. The Lower House in Myanmar rejected a motion to sign the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) arguing that it might endanger national security.
  6. The Parliament of Ukraine passed legislation that allows a sitting president to be impeached if they break the law.
  7. The government in Zambia is set to go ahead with a set of changes to the constitution which, among others, could remove parliament’s oversight over debt.

New Scholarship

  1. Ciara Fitzpatrick, Gráinne McKeever &Mark Simpson, Conditionality, discretion and TH Marshall’s ‘right to welfare’ 42(2) Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 1 (2019) (using empirical findings to illustrate the lack of fulfilment of social rights in the UK).
  2. Tarunabh Khaitan, Political insurance for the (relative) poor: How liberal constitutionalism could resist plutocracy, Global Constitutionalism (2019) (sketching the salience of gross economic inequality to modern constitutional and political theory and suggesting a set of legal and political constitutional measures to address it.)
  3. Stephan Stohler, Reconstructing Rights: Courts, Parties, and Equality Rights in India, South Africa, and the United States (2019) (drawing on legislative debates, legal briefs, and judicial opinions from High Courts in India, South Africa, and the United States to develop a theory of the judicial role in equality cases).
  4. Dragoljub Popovic, Comparative Government (2019) (providing a comparative study of decision-making mechanisms and lines of evolution, as well as parliamentary, presidential, semi-presidential, power sharing and supra-national level forms of government).
  5. Massimo La Torre, Leone Niglia, and Mart Susi (eds.), The Quest for Rights: Ideal and Normative Dimensions (2019) (bringing together a group of scholars explore the salience of the work of Robert Alexy in areas like the use of proportionality in conflicts of rights and the normativity of human rights).
  6. Maria Mousmouti, Designing Effective Legislation (2019) (advancing the idea that legislative effectiveness is the result of complex ‘mechanics’ in the conceptualization, design and drafting of four elements inherent in every law: purpose, content, context and result).
  7. W. Gregory Voss, Obstacles to Transatlantic Harmonization of Data Privacy Law in Context, 2 Journal of Law, Technology and Policy (2019) (discussing the challenges in the creation of a harmonized data privacy law in the United States and Europe).
  8. Alin Fumurescu, Compromise and the American Founding: The Quest for the People’s Two Bodies (2019) (discussing the analytic categories of the ‘people’ and ‘compromise’ as understood in seventeenth-century England and France, and providing an account of their salience during key moments of the founding of the United States.)
  9. Roberto Gargarella, Review of Tom Ginsburg and Aziz Huq, How to Save a Constitutional Democracy, 44 Revista Derecho del Estado (2019) (reviewing and providing critical analysis of the volume by Ginsburg and Huq).
  10. Maxime St-Hilaire et Joanna Baron, Introductory Essay: The Rule of Law as the Rule of Artificial Reason, 92 Supreme Court Law Review (2019) (reviews several theories of the rule of law, and drawing attention to the role of the legal profession, particularly judges, in sustaining the values of legality and the rule of law)

Call for Papers and Announcements

  1. The Rehnquist Center at the University of Arizona invites abstracts the third annual National Conference of Constitutional Law Scholars on March 20-21, 2020 by emailing 1- or 2-page abstracts to Andrew Coan (acoan@email.arizona.edu) by 1 October 2019.
  2. Democracy Reporting International invites scholars in the field of the rule of law in the EU to contribute to its pool of experts who can contribute to research and drafting analytical pieces on rule of law-related issues in EU members states.
  3. The Hungarian Helsinki Committee released a report on the deteriorating rule of law situation in Hungary, with a focus on areas like the undermining of the independence of the judiciary and curbing of media freedoms.
  4. The Faculty of Law McGill University invites applications for the 2020 O’Brien Graduate Fellowships.
  5. The Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat in Muenchen invites applications for 15 LMU Research Fellowships for outstanding early career researchers.
  6. The Centre for International Law at the National University of Singapore invites applications for a Research Associate to join its International Dispute and Resolution Programme.
  7. The International Center for Law and Religion Studies at the Brigham Young Law School invites abstracts for a project (culminating in a workshop) titled Human Dignity and Human Rights – Christian Perspectives and Practices: A Focus on Constitutional and International Law.

Elsewhere Online

  1. Tarunabh Khaitan, On Coups, Constitutional Shamelessness, and Lingchi, UK Constitutional Law Blog
  2. Aziz Huq, Judicial Norms and Judicial Capacity, Balkinization
  3. Nic Cheeseman, Lungu erodes Zambia’s democracy, Mail & Guardian
  4. Timothy Endicott, Don’t Panic, UK Constitutional Law Blog
  5. V. Venkatesan, Petitions challenging abrogation of Article 370: Apex court on test, Frontline
  6. James C. Hathaway, Acquiescing in Refoulement, Verfassungsblog
  7. Paul Craig, Prorogation: Three Assumptions, Oxford Human Rights Hub Blog
  8. Alan Greene, Miller 2, Non-justiciability and the Danger of Legal Black Holes, UK Constitutional Law Blog
  9. Corey Robin, Clarence Thomas’s Radical Vision of Race, The New Yorker
  10. Gautam Bhatia, The Absentee Constitutional Court, The Hindu
  11. Ibrahim AL-bakri Nyei, Liberia’s long-awaited constitutional referendum: Debate on alternatives to by-elections, ConstitutionNet
  12. Cem Tecimer, Recognizing Court-Packing, Verfassungsblog
  13. Franny Rabkin, Why Justice Stevan Majiedt aspires to be like Pius Langa, Mail & Guardian
  14. Kriszta Kovács and Gábor Attila Tóth, The Age of Constitutional Barbarism, Verfassungsblog
  15. Simona Florescu, The importance of time in child protection decisions; a commentary on Haddad v Spain, Strasbourg Observers
  16. Garrett Epps, The Supreme Court Is Not Well. And the People Know It, The Atlantic
  17. Robert Hazell and Nabila Roukhamieh-Mckinna, In defence of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, The Constitution Unit
  18. David R. Cameron, After passage of Benn bill and Johnson’s sixth defeat, House of Commons is prorogued, Yale MacMillan Centre
  19. Han-Ru Zhou, Ford and Irwin Toy 30 Years Later: A Conversation with Justice de Montigny, Constitutional Forum
Print Friendly
Published on September 16, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Developments