Blog of the International Journal of Constitutional Law and

Of the Politics of Resentment and European Disintegration: Are the European Peoples Ready to Keep Paddling Together? Part II

[Editor’s Note: This is Part II of a two-part series. Part I was published here on February 26, 2017.]

Tomasz Tadeusz Koncewicz, Professor of Law and Director of the Department of European and Comparative Law at the University of Gdańsk, Poland*

As I have argued in Part I of this series, the “politics of resentment” endanger the very basis of mutual trust between member states that has been defining the European project ever since its inception[1].

Mutual trust towards the other states and the community they had created acting in unison has been the cornerstone of an ethos of Europe[2]. This trust has been always built on the convergence between the fundamental values of Member States and their legal orders on the one hand, and the foundations of the Union legal order on the other. The “politics of resentment” pose the ultimate challenge to the foundations behind integration and EU membership: the commonality of liberal and democratic values and interests, agreement that the Community is more than just the sum of its parts and loyalty to the community legal order as binding on all components.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on March 9, 2017
Author:          Filed under: Analysis

The “C word”: Democratic Decay and the New Frontiers of Comparative Law (I-CONnect Column)

Tom Gerald Daly, Fellow, Melbourne Law School; Associate Director, Edinburgh Centre for Constitutional Law

[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.]

In a recent I-CONnect blog post of 18 February,[1] Mikołaj Barczentewicz referred to developments in 1950s South Africa to assess the threat of a “looming split” in the Polish constitutional order stemming from the potential for resistance by lower courts to the judgments of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal, which has been “captured” by the ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party in the context of ongoing democratic decay – a phenomenon which I have been loosely defining as the incremental degradation of the structures and substance of liberal constitutional democracy.[2] Four days later, my fellow I-CONnect columnist Asli Bâli wrote a compelling piece on “comparative law in the Age of Trump.”[3] Both posts raise two key questions: how is democratic decay worldwide expanding the frontiers of comparative law? And just how useful is comparative analysis in furthering our understanding of this phenomenon?

Comparative law―the ‘C word’, as Ran Hirschl so memorably calls it[4]―has clearly acquired a new urgency in the current climate. For those of us seeking a broad global perspective on democratic decay, it means delving into the constitutional systems of states as diverse as Hungary, Brazil, Poland, the Philippines, the Netherlands, South Africa–and, in more recent times, the US. Comparative enquiry is, of course, perennially bedevilled by the question of comparing like with like, and whether we can ever fully understand the inner workings of another system from our own vantage point. To some extent, we are faced with the same old practical questions, such as the capacity to speak the language of the countries under analysis–for Anglophones in particular it is harder to get a handle on the detail of systems outside the Anglosphere. We rely heavily on Polish and Hungarian scholars, for instance, to convey the reality of democratic decay in those states, and the role public law plays as both bulwark and catalyst of such decay.[5] The threat of decay is also shining a light on venerable constitutional systems that are often overlooked: we rely on Dutch constitutional scholars, for example, to assess whether Geert Wilders presents a real threat to democracy in the Netherlands.[6]

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on March 8, 2017
Author:          Filed under: Analysis

Installation Lecture of Mark Graber as Regents Professor at the University System of Maryland

Richard Albert, Boston College Law School

Please join I-CONnect in congratulating Professor Mark Graber on his installation as Regents Professor at the University System of Maryland (USM), one of only seven in the history of the USM.

Last week, Professor Graber delivered his installation lecture before an audience of family and friends, in addition to many professors and students of law and political science who had traveled to Baltimore for the occasion from Canada, England, Israel, Turkey and across the entire United States.

The induction ceremony is now online and available here. It features a tour-de-force lecture from Professor Graber, preceded by introductory remarks from Dean Donald Tobin.

Professor Mark Graber was formerly the Jacob A. France Professor of Constitutionalism. A graduate of Columbia, Dartmouth and Yale, Professor Graber has published dozens of important works in constitutional history, law and politics. His official bio follows below:

Professor Graber held a faculty position in the Department of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland, College Park from 1993-2007 and taught at the University of Maryland School of Law as an adjunct professor beginning in the fall of 2002. In 2004, he was appointed Professor of Government and Law at the School of Law, a title he held until May 1, 2015 at which time he received an appointment as the Jacob A. France Professor of Constitutionalism. In 2016, he was named Regents Professor, one of only seven Regents Professors in the history of the University System of Maryland and the only Regents Professor on the UMB campus. He served as associate dean for research and faculty development from 2010 to 2013. He has also been one of the organizers of the annual Constitutional Law “Schmooze”, which attracts scholars from across the country to the law school.

Professor Graber is recognized as one of the leading scholars in the country on constitutional law and politics. He is the author of A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism, forthcoming in 2013 from Oxford University Press, and co-editor (with Keith Whittington and Howard Gillman) of American Constitutionalism: Structures and Powers and American Constitutionalism: Rights and Powers, both also from Oxford University Press. He is presently working on Forged in Failure, a book that will examine how much constitutional change in the United States has been caused by the failure of constitutional practices to function as expected.

Professor Graber is also the author of scores of articles, including “The Non-Majoritarian Problem: Legislative Deference to the Judiciary” in Studies in American Political Development, “Naked Land Transfers and American Constitutional Development”, published in the Vanderbilt Law Review and “Resolving Political Questions into Judicial Questions: Tocqueville’s Aphorism Revisited”, published by Constitutional Commentary.

During fall 2013, he was a visiting faculty member at the University of Virginia School of Law.

Professor Graber is a dear friend of I-CONnect and a regular participant at the annual ICON-S Conference. Friends of I-CONnect around the world will have the opportunity to congratulate Professor Graber in person at the ICON-S Conference in Copenhagen this coming July, if not sooner.

We are grateful to Professor Graber for all he has done for the community of public law scholars, and we congratulate him on this tremendous honor.

Print Friendly
Published on March 7, 2017
Author:          Filed under: Developments

I-CONnect Global Symposium: Five Perspectives on the Brazilian Abortion Ruling

Richard Albert, Boston College Law School

Last month, we announced that I-CONnect would host a special symposium on a recent abortion decision in Brazil. In an historic ruling for the region, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Brazil held that a criminal prohibition on procuring an abortion before the end of the first trimester violates the fundamental rights of women as well as the principle of proportionality.

Writing for the majority, Justice Luís Roberto Barroso wrote that “women bear alone the integral burden of pregnancy.” He continued: “Therefore there will only exist gender equality if women have the right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy or not.”

Today we are pleased to publish a special global symposium on this abortion ruling. The symposium features comments from scholars around the world on this controversial and important decision–controversial because the Court split 3 to 2 and the judgment has stirred much debate among lawmakers, and important because the judgment has broken new ground in the region.

First, immediately below, we publish the syllabus of the case. The full judgment, translated into English, is available here: Brazilian Abortion Ruling–Translation. We then publish comments from the following scholars:

  1. Rebecca J. Cook and Bernard M. Dickens, both of the Faculty of Law at the University of Toronto;
  2. Chao-ju Chen, National Taiwan University College of Law;
  3. Grégor Puppinck, Director of the European Centre for Law and Justice in Strasbourg, France;
  4. Debora Diniz from the University of Brasilia and NYU Law School, and Christine Ricardo from the Yale Law School; and
  5. Rachel Rebouché, Temple University Beasley School of Law

We thank Justice Barroso and his Chambers for generously providing, at our request, the syllabus and translation for his majority opinion in this case. 

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on March 7, 2017
Author:          Filed under: Reviews

Call for Abstracts: Public Law and the New Populism

–Daniel Francis, International Journal of Constitutional Law

The International Journal of Constitutional Law (I-CON) is pleased to announce a call for abstracts for a workshop on “Public Law and the New Populism” to take place at NYU School of Law on September 15, 2017.  The workshop will be co-hosted by the Jean Monnet Center for International and Regional Economic Law & Justice at NYU.

The focus of the workshop will be on the relationship between the current populist turn in national and international politics, on the one hand, and legal norms and institutions on the other.  The aim is to bring together constitutional, international and public law scholars to investigate some of the distinctively legal dimensions of the populist wave sweeping the world’s democracies.  Each paper will be presented and discussed by an assigned commentator and other participants.  Following the workshop, there may be an opportunity for a subset of the papers to be submitted to the I-CON journal as a proposed symposium issue.

Abstracts of between 250 and 750 words should be submitted on or before March 31, 2017, by email to Daniel Francis at, with “Populism Workshop Submission” in the subject line.  Final papers will be due by August 15, 2017.  We hope to attract a genuinely diverse group of scholars in all respects.  We particularly welcome proposals which address of one or more of the following questions:

  1. One phenomenon or several?  What might be the shared or unifying dimensions, if any, of the challenges presented to constitutional and public law and institutions by the recent populist turn across the US, Europe, and parts of Asia?  Are there common problems and questions across jurisdictions or are these different and distinct phenomena?   Are they similar or different to those raised by earlier populist movements in Latin America and elsewhere?
  2. Which elements of the constitutional order are under strain?  Populist movements and populist leaders can present new challenges for the norms and institutions of public law: which aspects or elements of the constitutional and legal order will face the greatest strain in this new chapter of political history?
  3. Public law as a cause?  Does the rise of populism reflect a backlash against a systematic neglect of non-elite interests in or from constitutional and international law processes?  Have aspects of public law or its application played a role in bringing about this rise?
  4. Public law’s response.  Does (or should) the substance or application of public law — including its norms and its institutions — adapt in any ways to accommodate the phenomenon of populist politics?  Can (or should) public law become a point of resistance during periods of populist politics?  What are the implications of the populist turn for courts and the judiciary?
  5. What about international and transnational public law?  Can (or have) international or transnational legal norms and institutions responded in adequate ways to the strongly nationalist dimension of the populist turn?  Do international legal norms and institutions have a legitimate role to play in shaping, constraining, or reinforcing domestic political processes at such times?  More generally, what are the implications of the populist turn for law and legal institutions beyond the nation-state?
Print Friendly
Published on March 6, 2017
Author:          Filed under: Developments

What’s New in Public Law

–Angélique Devaux, Cheuvreux Notaires, Paris, France, Diplômée notaire, LL.M. Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law

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

Special Announcement: ICON-S Mexican Chapter

We are happy to announce the establishment of the ICON Mexican Chapter founded by Micaela Alterio (professor of constitutional law at ITAM) and Roberto Niembro (clerk at the Mexican Supreme Court). The aim of the Mexican Chapter is to pursue the mission of ICON-S within Mexico and to promote the objectives and the values of ICON-S. In particular, the commitment to an inter-disciplinary approach to public law that engages constitutional, administrative and international law scholars and practitioners so as to better understand global and transnational legal developments. This year the Mexican Chapter will organize a national conference focus on the hundred-year-old Mexican Constitution with the participation of distinguished scholars, judges and governmental officials. Further information will be published soon. We encourage interested scholars and practitioners to become part of this new project. For more information, please contact Ana Micaela Alterio (, or Roberto Niembro (

Developments in Constitutional Courts

  1. The Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig, Germany ruled in favor of “the right for a patient who is suffering and incurably ill to decide how and when their life should end” provided the patient “can freely express their will and act accordingly.”
  2. The Constitutional Court of Croatia ruled that the Yugoslav abortion law allowing a woman to terminate up to the 10th week of pregnancy does not breach the Constitution, but that the Parliament should pass a new and more detailed abortion legislation within two years.
  3. The Supreme Court of Nigeria declared free and compulsory basic education up to Junior Secondary School as an enforceable right for every child.
  4. The UK Supreme Court upheld the Government’s £18,600 income threshold that bars British workers’ foreign spouses entry into the UK, but judges also admitted it will continue to cause “significant hardship” for thousands of couples.
  5. The Supreme Court of India refused to allow abortion of a 23-week-old foetus although the foetus was diagnosed to suffer from Down syndrome.
  6. The High Court of Zimbabwe banned corporal punishment for children both at home and at school.
  7. The Constitutional Court of Uganda nullified all its prior interim orders not issued by a panel of five justices. Interim orders have been conventionally issued by a single justice.

In the News

  1. Catalonia prepares to vote in a referendum on independence from Spain this September.
  2. The Texas Supreme Court hears a challenge on same-sex marriage rights.
  3. The US Supreme Court declined hearing a direct challenge to the constitutionality of the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment.
  4. The EU Parliament adopted a resolution on measures to temporarily introduce visas for American citizen.
  5. The US President Trump signed a bill to reauthorize the use of guns for mentally ill persons.
  6. Mexico amended articles 107 and 123 of the Constitution of the United Mexican States that deal with labor proceedings and collective bargaining.
  7. The Gambian Parliament removed the constitutional age limit on presidential elections candidates.
  8. The Constitution of Moldova was for the first time translated in the eight languages of ethnic minority groups, as well as in Braille alphabet.

New Scholarship

  1. Farrah Ahmed, The Autonomy Rationale for Religious Freedom, 80 The Modern Law (2017) (focusing on two tensions which have unappreciated implications for religious freedom jurisprudence, particularly that of the ECHR)
  2. Mohamed Arafa, The Prohibition of Wearing Veil in Public Schools in Egypt: An Analysis of the Egyptian Supreme Constitutional Court jurisprudence, Revista De Investigacoes Constitutionais, 4 Journal of Constitutional Research (2017) (examining the decision of the Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt that upheld the prohibition on wearing veil in public schools)
  3. Eoin Carolan, Leaving Behind the Commonwealth Model of Rights Review: Ireland as an Example of Collaborative Constitutionalism (2017) (developing a model of collaborative constitutionalism as an alternative to conventional models of constitutional review)
  4. Lorne Neudorf, Taking Comparative Law Seriously: Rethinking the Supreme Court of Canada’s Modern Approach to Statutory Interpretation, Statute Law Review (2017) (proposing a principled approach to enhance the value and legitimacy of the use of foreign law by the Supreme Court of Canada)
  5. Lorne Neudorf, The Dynamics of Judicial Independence: A Comparative Study of Courts in Malaysia and Pakistan (2017) (examining the principle of judicial independence in a comparative perspective)
  6. Neil C Weare, Equally American: Amending the Constitution to Provide Voting Rights in U.S. Territories and the District of Columbia, 46 Stetson Law Review (2017) (proposing a voting rights amendment to the US Constitution that would provide full political participation and representation to citizens living in the Territories and the District of Columbia)
  7. David Stratas, The Canadian Law of Judicial Review: Some Doctrine and Cases (2017) (providing an up-to-date summary of the Canadian law of judicial review)
  8. Jaakko Husa, Hindu Law – Stateless Law?, 62 Scandinavian Studies in Law (2017) (discussing Hindu Law as a form of global law or law without the State)
  9. Tobias Lock, The Influence of EU law on Strasbourg Doctrines, European Law Review (2107 forthcoming) (identifying the distinct areas of influence of the EU law on doctrines of the European Court of Human Rights)

Calls for Papers and Announcements

  1. The European Commission Erasmus Program on “Parliamentary Procedures and Legislative Drafting” (EUROPADRA) invites applications for its joint Masters are open. Application deadline is 13 March 2017.
  2. Graz Jurisprudence at the Faculty of Law, University of Graz invites applications for two university Assistants without doctorate. German language skills are not required. Application deadline 22 March 2017.
  3. The European Law Institute invites submissions for its inaugural ELI European Young Lawyers Award. The deadline for submissions is 30 April 2017.
  4. The Center for Ethics and Law of the Life Science, the Human Rights Center, and Law and Global Justice of Durham Law School invite submission for a two-day conference on the topic “Defending Individual Rights,” to be held in Durham on 8-9 Mar 2017.
  5. The University of Otago invites submission and panel proposals for its conference to be held on 6-9 December 2017 in New Zealand.
  6. Curtin Law School invites submissions for its XIV Annual Australian Property Law  Teachers Conference on “Beyond Sole Ownership,” to be held on September 27-28, 2017.
  7. The University of Richmond School of Law invites proposal for its inaugural Mid-Atlantic Junior Faculty Forum in Richmond, VA, on May 10-11, 2017.
  8. The Italian Society of International Law and European Law invites submissions for its XXII Annual Conference on “Migration and International Law: Beyond the Emergency?” to be held on June 8-9, 2017.
  9. The Institutions and International Law in Eastern Europe, Leibniz Institute for the History and Culture of Eastern Europe invites submissions for a workshop to be held on 28-29 September, 2017.
  10. Nova Law School invites submissions for its conference on “The Federal Experience of the European Union,” to be held on May 22-23, 2017. The deadline for submission of abstracts is April 1, 2017.

Elsewhere Online

  1. Adam Liptak, A Constitutional Right to Facebook and Twitter? Supreme Court Weighs In, The New York Times
  2. Nikos Skoutaris, Limiting the Constitutional Space of Scotland and Northern Ireland, Verfassungsblog
  3. Ruthann Robson, Florida State Judge Grants Writ of Habeas Corpus to Immigration Detainee on Tenth Amendments Grounds, Constitutional Law Prof Blog
  4. Thomas Verellen, Opinion 3/15 on the Marrakehs Treaty: ECJ Reaffirms Narrow ‘Minimum Harmonisation’ exception to ERTA principle, European Law Blog
  5. Linda Greenhouse, Outsourcing the Constitution, The New York Times
  6. Catherine Bond, Constitutional and community aspects of flag burning in Australia, AUSPUBLAW
  7. Laura Cahillane, The Resurrection of Tribunals in Ireland? Some Preliminary Thoughts on the Disclosures Tribunal, Constitution Project
Print Friendly
Published on March 6, 2017
Author:          Filed under: Developments

Five Questions with Allan Hutchinson

Richard Albert, Boston College Law School

“Five Questions with … ” is a brand new feature at I-CONnect. We will periodically invite a public law scholar to answer five questions about his or her research.

This edition features Allan Hutchinson, Professor of Law at Osgoode Hall Law School. His full bio follows below:

A member of Osgoode’s faculty since 1982, Professor Allan Hutchinson served as Associate Dean from 1994 to 1996 and later, in 2003, he was named Associate Dean (Research, Graduate Studies and External Relations). Professor Hutchinson is a legal theorist with an international reputation for his original and provocative writings. He was elected to the Royal Society of Canada in 2004 and named a Distinguished Research Professor by York University in 2006.  His research interests are law and politics; legal theory; the legal profession; constitutional law; torts; jurisprudence; civil procedure; and racism and law. As well as publishing in most of the common-law world’s leading law journals, he has written or edited many books. Much of his work has been devoted to examining the failure of law to live up to its democratic promise. His latest publications are Evolution and the Common Law (Cambridge University Press, 2005) and The Companies We Keep: Corporate Governance for a Democratic Society (Irwin Law, 2006). In 2007, he received the University-wide Teaching Award and was a Visiting Professor at Harvard Law School.

1. Tell us about something you are working on right now.

I am pulling together essays–old, new and revised–as part of a project entitled “Too Late to Stop Now: Life, Law and Lore.”  It is an effort to see the connecting threads, if any, in my work. I want to take seriously my own challenge to others to look “where they stand” and to examine the link between (auto)biography and scholarship.

2. How and when do you write? Do you have a routine or do you write whenever and wherever you find the time?

Whenever I get the chance. No routine really other than me, my laptop and the music of Van Morrison.

3. Whose scholarship jumps to the top of your reading list when she or he publishes something new? 

I suppose it has to be Richard Posner–he is never less than provocative in all the right ways. I try to keep up with new twists and turns in legal theory.

4. Is there an article or book that influenced you as a student and that continues today to be an important reference point for you?

No question, it was by “What is History?” by Edward Hallet Carr. I was given it by a high school teacher and its theme that what you see depends on why you look and where you stand has influenced and shaped my approach to law, teaching and scholarship. There is no “view from nowhere” and any claim to appropriate that is misleading and often self-serving.

5. What are some of the big questions ripe for inquiry in your area of research interest?

Why do we keep asking “what is law?”? Trying to understand that project and why it has such a tenacious hold on the jurisprudential imagination remains top of the list. It is much better to generate and answer a very different set of practical questions about law, justice and their workings–legal theory is simply another form of situated practice.

BONUS Question

6. Do you have any advice to share with younger scholars in public law, say a doctoral candidate or a junior faculty member?

Avoid perfectionism, know that your views will change, treat writing as a daily practice, and never read one more piece simply to put off writing.

Print Friendly
Published on March 3, 2017
Author:          Filed under: Reviews

Judicial Backlash in Inter-American Human Rights Law?

Jorge Contesse, Assistant Professor of Law, Rutgers Law School

Argentina has one of the strongest monist constitutional practices in Latin America—a region where incorporation of international human rights law into domestic constitutional arrangements is already the norm.  In 1994, its legislature granted constitutional status to a number of international human treaties.  A decade later, relying on the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ interpretation of international norms, the Supreme Court of Argentina ruled that its domestic amnesty law, adopted in the mid-1980s by a military junta but now in violation of Argentina’s international treaties, was null and void.  In this way, Argentina served as an example to its peers in its commitment to the inter-American human rights system.

On February 14, 2017, however, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that could send shock waves into the field of regional human rights law.  The ruling concerned the implementation of a 2011 Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ decision against Argentina, in which the Court found the state in violation of the American Convention on Human Rights.  The reason?  In 2001, Argentina’s Supreme Court affirmed a civil judgment against two publishers, Fontevecchia and D’Amico, for running stories about an unacknowledged child of then-president Carlos Menem.[1]  The journalists filed a case against Argentina before the inter-American human rights system.  Ten years later, the Inter-American Court ordered the state to “revoke the decision in its entirety.”[2]  Argentina’s executive branch requested the Supreme Court to comply with the Inter-American Court’s remedy—that is, to revoke its 2001 ruling.

The Supreme Court, however, declined to do so.  It reasoned that the Inter-American Court lacked the authority to order the revocation of a domestic judgment, as doing so exceeded its powers under the American Convention.[3]  Legal scholars and commentators quickly scrutinized the Court’s judgment.[4]  Human rights organizations decried the decision, claiming that the Court had “unlatched” Argentina from the inter-American human rights system.[5]  And a current member of the Inter-American Court, an Argentinean national who also served on the country’s Supreme Court, rebuked the decision in the press.[6]

These criticisms suggest that Argentina, a country once so supportive of the international system, is now abruptly compromising it.  Yet, to fully understand the reasoning and impact of Argentina’s Supreme Court’s decision, we must consider its crucial aspects in greater detail.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on March 2, 2017
Author:          Filed under: Developments

Russian Supreme Court Quashes Conviction of Ildar Dadin

–Dimitry Mednikov, Litigation Unit, Institute for Law and Public Policy

On 22 February 2017, the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (hereinafter – “Supreme Court of Russia”), enforcing the judgment of the Constitutional Court of Russia (hereinafter – “RCC”) of 10 February 2017 No. 2-П, heard a motion to reopen a criminal case against Russian activist Ildar Dadin. Mr. Dadin had been convicted on 7 December 2015 under Article 212.1 of the Russian Criminal Code for repeated violations of statutory rules on holding public assemblies, and thereafter sentenced to 2.5 years in prison.

The Presidium of the Supreme Court of Russia held that:

  1. The criminal case against Mr. Dadin was to be reopened in the light of new circumstances;
  2. Mr. Dadin’s conviction by the Basmanny District Court of Moscow of 7 December 2015, upheld by the Moscow City Court on 31 March 2016, was to be quashed;
  3. The criminal case against Mr. Dadin was to be dismissed;
  4. Mr. Dadin was to be released and granted a right to compensation.

Mr. Dadin participated in the hearing via a video link. At the beginning of hearing, he petitioned the Supreme Court of Russia to grant him a right to be physically present at the hearing. The Supreme Court declined to do so.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on March 1, 2017
Author:          Filed under: Developments

Announcing the Admin Law Blog

Richard Albert, Boston College Law School

I-CONnect is pleased to welcome the Admin Law Blog to the blogosphere. The blog is edited by Farrah Ahmed (Melbourne), Swati Jhaveri (NUS) and Adam Perry (Oxford).

The Admin Law Blog will be online starting tomorrow–on Wednesday, March 1. Here is an announcement about the blog and what it will cover:

The Admin Law Blog is a forum for the discussion of ideas and developments of interest to scholars of administrative law across the common law world. It aims to connect administrative law scholars to each other and to contribute to the growing field of comparative administrative law. The blog is edited by Farrah Ahmed (Melbourne Law School), Swati Jhaveri (National University of Singapore), and Adam Perry (University of Oxford).

This blog is an incubation site for scholarly projects and legal reform proposals. It will feature both analysis pieces as well as a regular ‘roundup’ of developments in the field.  We launch the blog with a topical post by Susan Rose-Ackerman on ‘Administrative Law, the Common Law and the US Presidential System’ comparing separation of powers and checks and balances in the US to other common law parliamentary democracies. Paul Daly’s post on ‘Voidness, Voidability and Values‘ offers an account of the distinction between unlawful decisions that are void and those that are voidable.

We hope that this blog is a useful tool for exchange between communities of comparative administrative law scholars. We welcome submissions, replies and comments on posts.

Submissions are very welcome at Follow us on Twitter at @adminlawblog.

Please join us in welcoming the Admin Law Blog to the world!

Print Friendly
Published on February 28, 2017
Author:          Filed under: Developments