magnify

I·CONnect

Blog of the International Journal of Constitutional Law

Conference Report–The Inaugural ICON-S-IT Conference (Rome, November 23-24, 2018)

Maria Stella Bonomi, Post-Doctoral Scholar in Administrative Law, University of Roma Tre

The Inaugural Conference of the Italian Chapter of ICON-S was held in Rome on November 23-24, 2018 and focused on the theme of Unity and fragmentation within and beyond the State. The event was organized in cooperation with the National School of Public Administration (Scuola nazionale della Pubblica Amministrazione – SNA) – which hosted the Conference – and the Institute for research on public administration (Istituto di ricerche sulla pubblica amministrazione – IRPA).

The Inaugural Conference Organizing Committee was comprised of: Sabrina Bandera; Alessandro Baro; Stefano Battini; Maria Stella Bonomi; Marta Cartabia; Lorenzo Casini; Pietro Faraguna; Cristina Fasone; Angelo Mari; Giulio Napolitano; Marta Morvillo; Diletta Tega.

The conference had a remarkable success in terms of both participation and quality and attracted scholars from most Italian universities and research institutes, embracing all branches of public law. In particular, it featured:

  • 400 participants, both scholars and practitioners
  • 85 universities, both Italian and foreign
  • 2 plenary sessions
  • 65 parallel panels, with more than 250 papers presented, by both seniors and junior scholars.

The first plenary session concerned the independence of central banks as a constitutional principle, with the participation of Joseph H.H. Weiler (New York University), Chiara Zilioli (European Central Bank) and Roberto Bin (University of Ferrara). The second plenary session focused on the history of Italy and its connection with global culture, with the participation of Sabino Cassese (Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa), Andrea Giardina (Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa) and Maria Rosaria Ferrarese (University of Cagliari).

The parallel panels dealt with a wide range of topics, among which the evolution of the concept of sovereignty; the relationship between international and domestic legal systems; migration, identification of national borders and border control; freedom of movement within and beyond the State; nationalism, populism and constitutional powers; the proliferation and fragmentation of the sources of law and regulation. The panels had a great success and participation. After the paper presentations, stimulating discussions between panelists and auditors allowed a fruitful exchange.

Here is the link to the conference programme: https://www.icon-society.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/ICON-S-Ita_PROGRAMMA-1.pdf.

Print Friendly
Published on January 10, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Developments
 

Call for Papers: European Journal of International Law–The 30th Anniversary Symposium

International Law and Democracy Revisited: The EJIL 30th Anniversary Symposium

EJIL was founded in 1989, coinciding with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the attendant excitement encapsulated by that well-known optimistic/hubristic End of History phraseology, with predictions of liberal democracy to become regnant in the world and a New International Legal Order to replace the old First World-Second World-Third World distinctions.

Thirty years later the state of democracy, whether liberal or social or any other variant, seems to be far from sanguine.

Here is but a partial list of the challenges to democracy in the contemporary world:

  • The advent of so-called ‘illiberal democracies’
  • The crisis and breakdown of trust within established democracies
  • The reality or otherwise of states with ‘formal democracy’ often reduced to little more than elections, more or less free
  • The accountability and rule of law concerns, famously termed GAL concerns, which transnational governance regimes raise as indispensable features of democracy
  • The persistent ‘democracy deficit’ or ‘political deficit’ of the European Union and similar Organizations
  • The emergence of the global ‘data economy’ with mega platforms calling into question basic assumptions about territory and jurisdiction and calling into question the ability of democratic regimes to reign in such platforms increasingly questioned
  • The impact of both financial markets and international monetary bodies on the internal margin of manoeuvre and democratic choices of economic management
  • Democracy and global inequality: The relationship between counter-democratic ideologies, legal reforms and political processes at the domestic and global levels and social and economic processes such as the shrinking middle class and the lasting ramifications of the 2008 economic crisis.

The list of challenges could go on quite a bit. The international legal order itself has come under stress and the interaction, descriptively and prescriptively, of international law with the question of ‘democracy’ has become complex, even messy.

We are issuing here a Call for Papers. International lawyers from practice and academia as well as scholars from related disciplines are invited to send an abstract of 350-500 words setting out the prospective papers they would like to submit for inclusion in the symposium dealing with any theme that comes within the overarching topic of International Law and Democracy. We will accept proposals for research papers of 10-12K words as well as shorter Think Pieces of 5-7K words.

The deadline for the Abstracts is 15 January 2019. Draft papers of those abstracts selected by a committee composed of members of the Editorial Boards of EJIL will be expected by 15 June. We are considering a workshop in Madrid in early July to discuss the drafts. Final version of papers will be expected by 15 September.

Abstracts are to be sent to EJIL’s Managing Editor at anny.bremner@eui.eu by 15 January 2019.

Print Friendly
Published on January 9, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Developments
 

ICON·S Book Prize–Call for Nominations

–The Editors

ICON·S | The International Society for Public Law is pleased to open the Call for Nominations for its second annual Book Prize. In line with the Society’s mission, the prize will be awarded to an outstanding book or books in the field of public law, understood as a field of knowledge that transcends dichotomies between the national and the international as well as between administrative and constitutional law. Preference will be given to scholarship which, in dealing with the challenges of public life and governance, combines elements from all of the above with a good dose of political theory and social science.

The Book Prize will be awarded at the Society’s next Annual Conference on July 1-3, 2019 in Santiago, Chile to the author(s) of a book or books published in the two calendar years prior to the conference (2017 and 2018). The winner will be selected by the Society’s Book Award Committee, chaired in 2018 and 2019 by Anne Peters.

Eligibility Criteria

Monographs on public law as defined above written in any language are eligible for nomination. Only books published up to two years prior to the year of the annual meeting are eligible for nomination. The relevant criterion is the official publication year as stated in the book’s front-matter. Repeat nominations in consecutive years are not permitted. Books nominated for the 2018 Book Prize are not eligible. Nominated books must moreover be the first original edition.

Nomination Procedure

Members of the Society’s Executive Committee and Council, groups of at least three ICON·S members, book review editors of academic journals, as well as scholarly publishers are invited to nominate books, up to a maximum of 5 (five) each. The Book Prize Committee is authorized to consider books that have not been nominated and that it considers particularly worthy of consideration. Please note that authors are not eligible to nominate their own books. Please note also that edited books are not eligible for consideration. The Society especially welcomes nominations of scholarly works by female- and male-identifying scholars.

Nominations may be made via email to bookprize@icon-society.org with the following subject line: Book Prize ATTN: Chair of the Book Prize Committee. Nominations must include a justification of up to 200 words explaining the basis for the nomination.

The deadline for the submission of nominations is January 31, 2019.

Please note that the nominators must send (or make arrangements with the publisher to send) one hardcopy for each member of the Book Prize Committee no later than February 28, 2019 directly to each of the members of the committee. Addresses will be provided after nomination. E-Books or scans can substitute hardcopies with the approval of the Chair. Failure to deliver the required number of hardcopies or substitutes will lead to non-consideration of the proposal.

The Call for Nominations for the ICON·S Book Prize can be downloaded here.

Print Friendly
Published on January 9, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Developments
 

What’s New in Public Law

–Mohamed Abdelaal, Assistant Professor, Alexandria University Faculty 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 contact.iconnect@gmail.com.

Developments in Constitutional Courts

(1) In Palestine, the Supreme Court found a doctors’ strike illegal and an abuse of power.

(2) The Russian Constitutional Court upheld the constitutionality of a 2016 regulation, which requires sports teachers to participate in a mandatory training class without being compensated for it.

(3) The U.S. Supreme Court has set aside a verdict that said lawyers are required to pay an annual membership just to practice in a state.

(4) Chile’s Constitutional Court upheld measures tightening the requirements for human rights violators to get parole.

(5) In Turkey, an administrative court has ruled against a decision made by the State of Emergency Procedures Investigation Commission formed to investigate Turkey’s state of emergency measures.

In the News

(1) Thai parliament passed a bill legalizing medical cannabis and kratom.

(2) The Kuwaiti National Assembly’s interior and defense committee rejects citizenship for non-Muslims.

(3) The Guyana cabinet establishes advisory group after a no-confidence vote.

(4) In Israel, the government is pushing to reduce the electoral threshold.

(5) In Vietnam, a new controversial cybersecurity law took effect.

(6) According to the Irish Domestic Violence Act 2018, psychological or emotional abuse is now a criminal offence.

New Scholarship

(1) Nikos Skoutaris, Reflecting and Building Asymmetries: The Role of (Sub-) Constitutional Statutes in Spain and the UK, in Richard Albert & Joel Colon-Rios (eds.), Quasi-Constitutionality and Constitutional Statutes: Forms, Functions, Applications (Routledge, forthcoming 2019).

(2) Jason A. Cade, Judicial Review of Disproportionate (or Retaliatory) Deportation, 75 Washington & Lee L. Rev. 1427 (2018) (analyzing notable federal court opinions considering challenges to Trump administration deportation decisions).

(3) Dwight G. Newman, Arguing Indigenous Rights Outside Section 35: Can Religious Freedom Ground Indigenous Land Rights, and What Else Lies Ahead?, in Tom Isaac, ed., Key Developments in Aboriginal Law (ThomsonReuters, 2018) (examining why Indigenous communities might wish to argue land issues grounded in religious freedom).

(4) Adeel Hussain, Muhammad Iqbal’s Constitutionalism, 2 Indian L. Rev. (2018) (addressing debates on Islamic constitutionalism, conceptual counter-geographies of international law, and the intellectual history of Pakistan and India’s Constitutions).

(5) Jakub Vojtěch, The EU Framework for Islamic Securitisation and Sukuk in the Times of Brexit (2018) (defining the notion of Sukuk and Islamic Securitisation and focusing on the relevant European Union legislation in force today and in the future).

(6) Nelson Lund, The Constitutionality of Immigration Sanctuaries and Anti-Sanctuaries: Originalism, Current Doctrine, and a Second-Best Alternative, University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, forthcoming (providing a critical analysis of the US Supreme Court’s immigration jurisprudence).

(7) Colleen V. Chien, Policy Pilots: Experimentation in the Administration of the Law, Iowa L. Rev., forthcoming (proposing that policy problem solvers frame their suggestions in terms of experiments to try, not just policies to enact).

(8) Björn Dressel and Tomoo Inoue, Megapolitical Cases before the Constitutional Court of Indonesia since 2004: An Empirical Study, 4 Const. Rev. (2018) (providing a critical analysis to the decisions of the Indonesian Constitutional Court over the period 2003-2018).

Call for Papers and Announcements

(1) The International Courts and Tribunals Interest Group (ICTIG) of the American Society of International Law (ASIL) is pleased to announce a call for papers.  ICTIG will be holding a Works-in-Progress Conference at the John Marshall Law School in Chicago on Friday, January 25, 2019.

(2) Article submissions are requested for issue 61 of the Forced Migration Review. This issue will have a focus on Ethics and Displacement and will be published in June 2019.

(3) The University of Miami School of Law and the University of Miami International & Comparative Law Review will host the Second International and Comparative Insolvency Law Symposium.

(4) The Institute of International and European Law will host the European Society of International Law’s annual Research Forum under the theme of “The Rule of Law in International and Domestic Contexts: Synergies and Challenges”.

(5) The University of Illinois College of Law, the University of Bologna School of Law, and Johns Hopkins Center for Constitutional Studies and Democratic Development invite paper proposals for the Fourth Illinois-Bologna conference on Constitutional History: Comparative Perspectives. The conference will be held in Chicago on April 29 & 30, 2019.

Elsewhere online

(1) Stephen Kafeero, Uganda: 5 Years Later, Case Against Public Order Law Not Heard, All Africa

(2) Year in review: How Romania has changed in 2018, Romania Insider

(3) Peter Schey, The Stupidest Government Shutdown, Immigration Prof Blog

(4) Is Immigration Law Administrative Law?, Immigration Prof Blog

(5) Michael Ramsey, Can the President Be Indicted?, The Originalism Blog

(6) John Yoo and James C. Phillips, ‘Free Speech’ Means Just That, National Review

(7) CMS Albiñana and Suárez de Lezo, The new Constitutional Law on the Protection of Personal Data and Guarantee of Digital Rights, Lexology

Print Friendly
Published on January 7, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Developments
 

Special Discount–Paperback Edition–“Canada in the World: Comparative Perspectives on the Canadian Constitution”

Richard Albert, William Stamps Farish Professor of Law, The University of Texas at AustinDavid R. Cameron (Yale) and I are pleased to share a special 20% discount code for our readers interested in the new paperback edition Canada in the World: Comparative Perspectives on the Canadian Constitution (Cambridge University Press 2018). The book features contributions from many members of ICON-S.

To order this book at the discount rate, enter code RALBERT2018 at checkout here.

The book’s description follows below:

In this volume marking the Sesquicentennial of Confederation in Canada, leading scholars and jurists discuss the evolution of the Canadian Constitution since the British North America Act, 1867; the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution as a “living tree” capable of application to new legal issues; and the growing influence of both the Constitution, with its entrenched Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the decisions of the Court on other constitutional courts dealing with a wide range of issues pertaining to human rights and democratic government. The contributors assess how the Canadian Constitution accommodates the cultural diversity of the country’s territories and peoples while ensuring the universal applicability of its provisions; the role of the Court in interpreting and applying the Constitution; and the growing global influence of the Constitution and decisions of the Court on legislatures and courts in other countries.

And here are the contents to the volume:

Introduction

The values of Canadian constitutionalism
Richard Albert

Part I. Federalism and Pluralism in Canadian Constitutionalism

1. Diversity and the rule of law: A Canadian perspective
Rt. Hon. Beverley McLachlin, P.C.

2. Misconceiving federalism: Canada and the federal idea
Stephen Tierney

3. Political dynamics in Quebec: Charting concepts and imagining political avenues
Alain-G. Gagnon

4. Indigenous peoples and the Canadian state: The prospects of a postcolonial constitutional pluralism
Patrick Macklem

5. Legality, legitimacy and constitutional amendment in Canada
Jamie Cameron

6. Constituting citizens: Oaths, gender, religious attire
Ayelet Shachar

Part II. The Court in Canadian Constitutionalism

7. The judicial constitutionalization of politics in Canada and other contemporary democracies: Comparing the Canadian secession case to South Africa’s death penalty case and Israel’s landmark Migdal constitutional case
Michel Rosenfeld

8. Originalism in Australia and Canada: Why the divergence?
Jeffrey Goldsworthy and Grant Huscroft

9. Rights inflation in Canada and the United States
Mark Tushnet

10. Substantive equality past and future: The Canadian charter experience
Catharine A. MacKinnon

11. Canadian constitutional law of freedom of expression
Adrienne Stone

12. The judicial, legislative and executive roles in enforcing the constitution: Three Manitoba stories
Kent Roach

Part III. The Global Impact of Canadian Constitutionalism

13. Going global? Canada as importer and exporter of constitutional thought
Ran Hirschl

14. Exporting dialogue: Critical reflections on Canada’s ‘commonwealth’ model of human rights protections
Alison Young

15. The European Court of Human Rights and the Canadian case-law
Lech Garlicki

16. Canadian rights discourse travels to the East: Referencing to Canadian charter case laws by Hong Kong’s court of final appeal and Taiwan’s constitutional court
Wen-Chen Chang

17. The Canadian charter, South Africa and the paths of constitutional
influence
Heinz Klug

Conclusion

18. The court and constitution in the world
David R. Cameron

Print Friendly
Published on January 7, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Developments
 

Call for Papers–ICON-S German Chapter–Inaugural Conference: Law and Order–Recht und Ordnung–Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 28-29 March 2019

Law enables order. It regulates how we live together as a society and sets out a framework within which political and other conflicts are managed. But stability is not the only goal of these efforts. In democratic states, law must always provide space for opposition and contestation. In liberal states, it has to leave room for individual freedom. The order it establishes is therefore always and necessarily fragmentary and unstable. The ambivalence of the term Rechtsstaat in the German tradition, with its oscillation between order and liberty, is an illustration of this.

Contemporary global and German political developments speak to this unstable relationship of law to order in multiple ways. In the much-debated case of Sami A. or the Bavarian resistance to a ruling of the European Court of Justice progressives worry about the Rechtsstaat in the context of resistance to judicial decisions by state actors – a recurring theme, too, for observers of the European Court of Human Rights. In turn, conservative politicians have characterized protest and civil disobedience in the context of deportations of asylum seekers as a threat to the Rechtsstaat. If this criticism of protest against (legal) state action conceives of law and order as inseparable, law may also be understood by some to inhibit order as in the case of racial profiling, increasingly an issue of concern in Germany, too.

For the inaugural conference of the newly founded German Chapter of ICON-S, we invite contributions on the broader relationship of law and order as well as on what is commonly understood as “law and order“, i. e., questions of policing and security. The aim of the conference is to establish the German Chapter of ICON-S as a forum to bring together a wide range of perspectives on public law, including approaches both within law and from other disciplines. Submissions in English or German are welcome and there will be panels in both languages at the conference. We invite both senior scholars as well as younger researchers, including excellent doctoral researchers, to submit an abstract of 500-1000 words by Jan. 20 to iconsdeutschland@gmail.com. Selected presenters will be notified by Feb. 15. The selection will be based on 1. the quality of the abstract, 2. fit with the theme and other papers, 3. the effort to represent a range of different perspectives and voices.

Print Friendly
Published on January 3, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Developments
 

The Vices of Leaving This Undecided

Renáta Uitz, Central European University

[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 2018, see here.]

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) closed 2018 with a much awaited judgment on the applicability of sharia in Europe. The case arose from an inheritance dispute in Greece: the applicant and her late husband were both Muslims, living in Thrace, and us such, falling under a historic minority protection regime that dates back to the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire.[1] Under this regime the Greek state and Greek courts recognized sharia as the law applicable to certain affairs of Greece’s Muslim citizens. In Molla Sali,[2] the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR unanimously found a violation, agreeing with the applicant that Greek courts should have allowed her to inherit under the Greek Civil Code, in accordance with the will and wishes of her deceased husband.

The symbolic impact of the Grand Chamber is significant: the Court confirmed the findings of several regional and international human rights bodies, pointing out the shortcomings of Greece’s practices regarding the treatment of the Muslim minority in Thrace. The practical impact of the judgment is seemingly moderate, as Greece decided to amend its national law about the jurisdiction of courts (and muftis) applying sharia law in January 2018, shortly after the hearing in the Molla Sali case before the Grand Chamber.

The judgment is worthy of attention because of all the issues the Grand Chamber carefully chose not to decide.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on January 3, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Developments
 

The Challenges of Transformative Constitutionalism – A Reply to Jorge González Jácome

–Carlos BernalJustice, Colombian Constitutional Court[1]

I

In “The Promise and Peril of “Transformative Constitutionalism,” Jorge González Jácome comments on my earlier post here at I-CONnect on “The Paradox of the Transformative Role of the Colombian Constitutional Court.” González makes seven claims about my post:

  1. (a) That I “advanced an argument against the transformative role of constitutional tribunals”; and (b) that I argue that “transformative constitutionalism should be abandoned because it has not been able to fully achieve the goals set by the constitution.”
  2. That I hold that (a) “there are some constitutional goals set beforehand that the Court should seek to fulfill within the framework of its institutional constraints”; and (b) that “judges should not take part” in the process of “adopting constitutional goals.”
  3. That I imply that “we should think of constitutional adjudication differently […] leaving courts as a secondary character within the framework of constitutionalism”.
  4. That I endorse “self-restraint” of Constitutional Courts as a solution for the challenges of transformative constitutionalism.
  5. That I claim that “aggressive adjudication of social and economic rights must be abandoned.”
  6. That I hold that rights and courts are captured by strategic litigation.
  7. That I “argue that more activism of the Court implies less congressional action.”

These claims are a misrepresentation of my views of the challenges that transformative constitutionalism undeniably faces. I do actually not make any case against transformative constitutionalism. Instead, I point to some side effects of its implementation. Minimizing those side effects will strengthen transformative constitutionalism and make it more effective. In what follows I will address all the claims González makes. I will show that his overall argument is flawed because of the falsehood of its premises.

II

1

In my post I did not advance the argument “against the transformative role of constitutional tribunals”, namely, that “transformative constitutionalism should be abandoned because it has not been able to fully achieve the goals set by the constitution.” Instead, I highlighted some challenges that transformative constitutionalism undeniably faces by means of stating a paradox. Transformative constitutionalism is the unfinished project of realizing constitutional rights (in particular, of realizing economic and social rights), the rule of law, and deliberative democracy. Constitutional courts are central institutions for carrying out the project of transformative constitutionalism. However, that institutional fact gives rise to a paradox. As I wrote in my post, “if the Court declines the task of continuing the transformations, the constitutional objectives concerning the realization of constitutional rights, the rule of law, and deliberative democracy will never be achieved in full. However, [due to some side effects] if the Court carries on with the changes, its decisions might not generate the desired transformative effects.”

Stating this paradox does not imply that constitutional courts should relinquish their institutional responsibility to keep carrying out the project of transformative constitutionalism. Indeed, as I contended in a recent lecture in Belo Horizonte (Brazil), at least in the Global South constitutional courts have a non-renounceable transformative constitutional duty. This duty is incompatible with solving the paradox by accepting the first horn. Denying the side effects cannot produce a plausible solution either. Only implementing innovative ways to deal with the side effects can we hope to resolve the paradox. As I stated in the last paragraph of my post: “The most pressing challenge of the Constitutional Court is finding out a way to minimize those side effects.”

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on January 1, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Analysis
 

We Should Learn from Historians: Seeing the Future in Brazil’s Political Landscape

Juliano Zaiden Benvindo, University of Brasília and National Council for Scientific and Technological Development

The election of Jair Bolsonaro as Brazil’s next President has sparked a fruitful debate over the expansion of an illiberal mindset across the globe, now reaching the biggest economy in Latin America and world’s fourth largest democracy. For some, Brazil seems doomed to join the club of countries such as Hungary, Poland, Turkey or Philippines, where an authoritarian turn has clearly undermined some of their democratic credentials. These more recent cases, to a greater or lesser extent, are characterized by the strategic use of constitutionals tools to undermine democracy, a phenomenon that has been dubbed “abusive constitutionalism,”[1] “stealth authoritarianism,”[2] “autocratic legalism,”[3] and the like by prominent scholars. By the same token, in the last years, also motivated by the rise of such an illiberal mindset in mature democracies, a series of books have been published on the subject,[4] and the number of posts on academic blogs on the topic has reached new highs. This phenomenon has also fostered a rich network of scholars working on the subject. For instance, this year Tom Gerald Daly launched the fantastic “Democratic Decay Resource,” which is aimed at “[assisting] researchers and policymakers focused on the deterioration of democratic rule worldwide – and to help them work together.” It is a new paradigm of comparative constitutional studies, and Brazil’s would fill the ranks of another relevant case scholars should be closely looking into.

There are certainly symptoms of “democratic decay” in various parts of the world, and Brazil is clearly one case exemplifying this trend, but, as a constitutional phenomenon that appears to be taking place as a wave, researchers should bear in mind the serious methodological concerns when comparing countries whose backgrounds are distinct. Also, the type and power of the illiberal movements in the different countries differ quite strongly one from the other. However, besides the methodological issues comparativists tend to bear in mind, a critical concern that should play a greater role in such analyses comes from historiographic studies. After all, a common symptom in comparative — and also domestic — constitutional and political studies is that they are often knocked down by the very pace of changes. One of the main difficulties for us constitutional scholars and political scientists nowadays is that we are often beaten by the speed and intensity of the events that are passing by in front of us. Who among us has not written a paper which, at the time it is published, already seems outdated?

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on December 31, 2018
Author:          Filed under: Developments
 

What’s New in Public Law

–Mohamed Abdelaal, Assistant Professor, Alexandria University Faculty 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 contact.iconnect@gmail.com.

Developments in Constitutional Courts

(1) The US Supreme Court denied a request by the Trump administration to enforce new asylum rules.

(2) The Palestinian Constitutional Court to dissolve Legislative Council.

(3) The Turkish Constitutional Court ruled that the headscarf ban violates student’s right of education and freedom of religion.

(4) The French Conseil d’Etat ordered the review of Afghan interpreter’s asylum request.

In the News

(1) The UK announces January vote on Brexit agreement.

(2) Poland reinstates Supreme Court judges who were forced into early retirement.

(3) Cuban lawmakers unanimously approved a new constitutional draft.

(4) In Russia, the parliament is considering amending the constitution.

(5) In Sudan, violent protests erupted in response to the country’s economic crisis.

(6) Former Pakistan prime minister has been sentenced to 7 years in prison for corruption.

(7) Nepalese government proposes constitutional amendments.

New Scholarship

(1) Mark Fathi Massoud, How an Islamic State Rejected Islamic Law, 66 The American Journal of Comparative Law (2018) (answering the question of why Muslim political elites first rejected Islamic law, rather than enacted it, as the basis of the legal system).

(2) Christopher R. Green, Justice Gorsuch and Moral Reality, Alabama Law Review (forthcoming) (considering what Justice Gorsuch’s first year-and-a-half on the Court tell us about his understanding of the relationship between interpretation and moral considerations).

(3) Mikayla Novak, Constitutional Catallaxy and Indigenous Rights: The Australian Case (2018) (analyzing certain theoretical presumptions surrounding the development and maintenance of a political constitution).

(4) Joseph D’Agostino, Against Imperialism in Legal Concepts, 7 UNH L Rev 67 (2018) (arguing for translating non-essentialist concepts into essentialist ones while still using the former’s theory forms).

(5) John Mark Keyes, Rethinking Judicial Review of Delegated Legislation (2018) (arguing that the standard of review analysis should be applied to the review of all forms of delegated legislation and that, which the standard of reasonableness is usually appropriate, there are situations justifying correctness).

(6) Ryan Doerfler, Can a Statute Have More Than One Meaning?, 94 NYU L Rev (2019) (discussing the odds of the variation of the statutory language means from case to case).

(7) Adam Mossoff, Statutes, Common-Law Rights, and the Mistaken Classification of Patents as Public Rights, Iowa L Rev (Forthcoming) (surveying these well-known sources of property rights in both statutes and judicial decisions, revealing that conflating “common law” with private property rights is more legal myth than historical fact.)

(8) Coel Kirkby, Law Evolves: The Uses of Primitive Law in Anglo-American Concepts of Modern Law, 1861-1961, American Journal of Legal History (2018, Forthcoming) (examining how Anglo-American legal thinkers used primitive law to develop their concepts of modern law in the century from Austin to Hart as well as the development of legal anthropology as a distinct discipline combining the scientific method of participant observation with the legal method of the case study).

(9) Yahli Shereshevsky, Back in The Game: International Humanitarian Law-Making by States, Berkeley Journal of International Law (Forthcoming) (providing an analysis to the recent tendency of states to use unilateral, non-binding, lawmaking initiatives in the context of international humanitarian law).

Calls for Papers and Announcements

(1) Elon Law Review invites submissions for a symposium exploring how our High Court is affected by the circumstances of contemporary America. The symposium will be held on September 27, 2019, at Elon University School of Law in Greensboro, North Carolina.

(2) The NUSRL Journal for Constitutional Law & Governance welcomes submissions for its new volume.

(3) A call for proposals has been issued for the seventh biennial conference on Applied Legal Storytelling to be hosted by the University of Colorado School of Law, University of Denver Sturm College of Law, and University of Wyoming School of Law, and coordinated by the Rocky Mountain Legal Writing Scholarship Group in Boulder, Colorado, July 9–11 2019.

(4) The Government Law College, Kozhikode is organizing a three day International Seminar on International Legal Norms on Terrorism & Counter Terrorism: Promises, Experiences and Challenges from 27th to 29th January, 2019, at the college premises in Kozhikode, Kerala, India.

(5) NLIU Law Review in collaboration with India Foundation is conducting the NLIU – India Foundation Constitutional Law Symposium on March 16-17, 2019.

Elsewhere Online

(1) Discriminating against migrants isn’t just unconstitutional, it’s also bad politics, The Times of India

(2) Beyond the backstop: understanding Unionist sentiment in the Brexit debate, Centre on Constitutional Change

(3) Aileen McHarg, The Scottish Continuity Bill Reference, Centre on Constitutional Change

(4) Daoud Kuttab, What is the motive behind dissolving Palestinian legislature?, The Jordan Times

(5) Letter: Why is it so hard to amend Caribbean constitutions?

Print Friendly
Published on December 31, 2018
Author:          Filed under: Developments