Blog of the International Journal of Constitutional Law

The European Arrest Warrant as a Constitutional Instrument (I-CONnect Column)

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.]

It is old news that Europe’s multi-layered constitutional governance regime has long had a strained relationship with constitutionalism.[1] The EU’s half-hearted response to illiberal constitutional transformations in Hungary and Poland that violate the founding values of the Union is a more recent sign of serious trouble, as it signals to willing national political actors that previously unthinkable departures from the rule of law have become acceptable means of European governance.[2] The sheer technicality of legal responses (including in the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)) exacerbates this sense of demise.[3] Ironically, in this era the negotiated departure of the United Kingdom from the Union is proof that European bureaucracy functions fine.

It is against this background that in March 2018 the Irish High Court presented the CJEU with an unexpected opportunity to bridge the gap between founding principles and technical rules on account of handling an extradition request under a European Arrest Warrant (EAW).[4] The CJEU’s pending response to the Irish judge may well turn into an accidental constitutional moment for Europe in the shadow of Brexit and the rise of illiberal political rulers.

The EAW is a tool of judicial cooperation, a judicial surrender procedure, to assist prosecution and detention of a particular person across member states for certain crimes.[5] National Courts may refuse to execute an EAW on narrow grounds.[6] Most recently the EAW made headlines when the Spanish judiciary used it to request the extradition of Catalan leaders residing in exile in several European countries.[7] Spectacular mistakes in confused identities, delays in a foreign country’s justice system and detention conditions make the EAW into a handy illustration of what is wrong with EU member ship, and as such the EAW is a low-hanging fruit for Europhobes. As such, it is an unlikely vehicle of European integration par excellence.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on April 25, 2018
Author:          Filed under: Developments

I-CONnect Symposium on “Constitutional Boundaries” — The Relevance of Past, Present and Future to the Concept of (Constitutional) Law

[Editor’s Note: This is the third entry in our symposium on “Constitutional Boundaries.” The introduction to the symposium is available here, the first entry is available here, and the second entry is available here.]

Peter Oliver, Full Professor and Vice Dean Research, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa

In keeping with the theme of the workshop, my paper identified a boundary: that between the past and the future. It attempted to explore the extent to which the future is a relevant, even essential, aspect of law, especially constitutional law.

This way of approaching (constitutional) law goes against the grain. The idea that law is a pre-existing source, enacted or declared in the past and applied in the present in the form of legal advice or legal implementation, is deeply embedded in our assumptions about the rule of law. The future doesn’t really seem to be relevant. Are there any indications in legal practice that suggest that the future aspect of law merits greater attention?  Much could be said about the common law and the way that rules and principles developed in the past interact with new facts, and whether consideration of the latter factual context involves having a mind to the future; or about the way that advocates arguing cases at the highest level so often talk about the undesirable consequence of following their opponent’s approach and the more favourable results flowing from their client’s position. One could also think about parental authority, by way of analogy, and the way in which insufficient and excessive attachment to pre-established parental rules and insufficient and excessive attention to contextual considerations in exercising parental judgement can place the ongoing effectiveness of that authority in jeopardy.

Perhaps the most efficient way of summarizing the argument in the paper is to set it out in a series of propositions:

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on April 25, 2018
Author:          Filed under: Analysis

I-CONnect Symposium on “Constitutional Boundaries” — Proportionality and the Boundaries of Borrowing

[Editor’s Note: This is the second entry in our symposium on “Constitutional Boundaries.” The introduction to the symposium is available here, and the first entry is available here.]

Adrienne Stone, Kathleen Fitzpatrick Australian Laureate Fellow, Redmond Barry Distinguished Professor, Director of the Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Law School

Australian constitutional law is having something of a proportionality moment. At last, and much later than most comparable jurisdictions, the High Court of Australia has, by majority, adopted a ‘proportionality test’ as a means of determining limits on constitutional protection for political communication. But far from signalling the end of an element of Australia’s constitutional exceptionalism, the decision has immediately produced more controversy.  In a more recent case, there are some indications of a retreat in the High Court with some members of the Court explicitly rejecting proportionality while others appear to have confined its use by declining to use the test in a closely related context.

The source of the judicial reservation about lies in the deep association between proportionality and constitutional rights. As is well known, the Australian Constitution is principally structural and federal in its scope and contains sparse, if any, rights protection, reflecting a marked preference for political constitutionalism in that domain. (The constitutional protection conferred on political communication is among the few exceptions and even on this score the High Court has been disinclined to refer to the doctrine as a constitutional ‘right’ stressing rather its structural and institutional purpose).

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on April 24, 2018
Author:          Filed under: Analysis

I-CONnect Symposium on “Constitutional Boundaries” — Constitutional Theory and Boundary Problems: Some Reflections

[Editor’s Note: This is the first entry in our symposium on “Constitutional Boundaries.” The introduction to the symposium is available here.]

–Lael K Weis, Senior Lecturer, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Law School

The invitation to participate in the Constitutional Boundaries Workshop provided me with an important opportunity to reflect on the development and trajectory of my early career as a constitutional theorist, and the ways that constitutional law’s ‘boundaries’ have figured in defining my research interests.  This blog post shares some of these reflections, and describes some of my current ‘boundary’ probing research.

‘Boundary problems’ are the bread and butter of constitutional theory.  Theoretical problems frequently emerge at the ‘boundaries’ that define constitutional law concepts.  Making progress on theoretical problems thus relies, to some extent, on the acceptance of established, problem-defining boundaries—in the same way that ‘normal science’ (in the Kuhnian sense) relies on a scientific community’s acceptance of a scientific paradigm.[1]  And yet, theoretical debates can stalemate around unhelpfully polarised positions if problem-defining boundaries are not subject to ongoing critical examination.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on April 23, 2018
Author:          Filed under: Analysis

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

Developments in Constitutional Courts

  1. The Pakistani Supreme Court disqualified a former prime minister from running for parliament.
  2. Trinidad & Tobago’s High Court declared sodomy laws unconstitutional.
  3. In Spain, the Supreme Court denied a request to release the proposed Catalan leader.
  4. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of Rod Blagojevich, the former governor of Illinois, against charges over illegal political fundraising.\The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on internet tax sales.

In the News

  1. Ivory Coast inaugurated its first senate.
  2. Members of the Democratic Party in the United States claim that a recent strike in Syria is unconstitutional.
  3. The Chief Justice of the Israeli Supreme Court argued that the Knesset should not be given the authority to override High Court rulings that struck down laws.
  4. In Portugal, the parliament adopts a law allowing citizens to change their gender.
  5. In Spain, protesters flood the streets in support of the Catalan independence leader.
  6. US senators introduce new war powers bill.
  7. Recent amendments to the Turkish Constitution will come into force in 2019.
  8. In Pakistan, the constitutionally of the president’s pardon powers is challenged before the Supreme Court.

New Scholarship

  1. Amos N. Guiora, Inciting Terrorism on the Internet: The Limits of Tolerating Intolerance, in Incitement to Terrorism (A. Bayefsky & L. Blank, eds, Brill 2018) (discussing the First Amendment limitations and the duty to legally protect victims of hate speech.)
  2. Colleen V. Chien, Inequality, Innovation, and Patents (2018) (exploring the relationship between inequality, innovation, and patents.)
  3. Sherally Munshi, ‘You Will See My Family Became so American’: Race, Citizenship, and the Visual Archive, in Law and the Visual: Representations, Technologies, and Critique (Desmond Manderson, eds, 2018 (highlighting the tension between the visualization of race—a practice at once institutionalized by law and inextricably bound with the medium of photography—and the performance of national belonging.)
  4. Christina Mulligan, Diverse Originalism, ‎U. Pa. J. Const. L (forthcoming) (arguing that originalists can take several actions today to address originalism’s race and gender problems, including debiasing present-day interpretation.)
  5. Giuliano G. Castellano and Marek Dubovec, Global Regulatory Standards and Secured Transactions Law Reforms: At the Crossroad between Access to Credit and Financial Stability, 41 Fordham Int’l L.J. (2018) (arguing that dissonances between secured transactions law and capital requirements stem from their different ethoi and hinder both access to credit and financial stability worldwide.)
  6. Jean Du Plessis, The South African Statutory Derivative Action: Background, Comparisons and Application (2018) (discussing the statutory derivative action under South African law, with some comparative notes.)
  7. Mark Graber, Institutionalism as Conclusion and Approach, in Research Methods in Constitutional Law: A Handbook (David Law and Malcolm Langford eds, Edward Elgar Publishing, Forthcoming) (introducing a new perspective to the institutional analysis in public law.)
  8. Stephen M. Griffin, Presidential Impeachment in Partisan Times: The Historical Logic of Informal Constitutional Change, 51 Conn. L. Rev. (2018) (introduction the mechanism of presidential impeachment as a new contribution to the ongoing debate in constitutional theory over theories of informal constitutional change.)
  9. Lawrence B. Solum, Originalist Theory and Precedent (2018) (providing some introductory thoughts about the relationship between originalist constitutional theory and the proper role of precedent in the American judicial system.)
  10. James R. Maxeiner, Failures of American Methods of Lawmaking in Historical and Comparative Perspectives, in ASCL Studies in Comparative Law (Cambridge University Press, 2018) (showing how the methods of American legislative lawmaking, owing to neglect, have failed to keep up with their counterparts abroad, and have thus denied the people the government of laws that the founders expected.)
  11. Gilad Yadin, Virtual Reality Exceptionalism, 20 Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. 839 (2018) (arguing that cyberlaw theory and cyberspace-specific legal regimes may be dramatically undermined by the advent of virtual reality technology.)
  12. Pierre Auriel, Olivier Beaud, Carl Wellman (Eds.) The Rule of Crisis Terrorism, Emergency Legislation and the Rule of Law (Springer 2018) (analyzing emergency legislations formed in response to terrorism.)
  13. Mohamed Abdelaal, The Flawed Public Participation in the Egyptian Constitutional Process, in Tania Abbiate, Markus Böckenförde, and Veronica Federico (eds), Public Participation in African Constitutionalism (Routledge, 2017) (highlighting the difficulties and ambiguities of the Egyptian process, wherein the military-backed government sought to control and direct public attitude and input.)
  14. Colton Fehr, Self-Defence and the Constitution, 43 Queen’s L. J. 85 (2017) (arguing that it will be necessary to parse the nuanced moral distinctions inherent in the law of self-defence.)
  15. Elisa Arcioni, ‘We, what people?’ Constitutional identity in Australia, 2 This Century’s Rev. 34-36 (2017) (explaining how the Australian Constitution is a good example of how constitutional law – the text and surrounding interpretation – can give a rich account of who the constitutional “people” are.)

Call for Papers

  1. The Interest Group on International Courts and Tribunals is organizing a workshop as a side-event to the ESIL 2018 Annual Conference in Manchester. The workshop will take place at the University of Manchester on 13th September 2018, 9-12.30 am.
  2. The School of Law of University of Padova (Italy) will hold an International Law Conference on “International Lawyers and Human Dignity on the 80th anniversary of the promulgation of Italian Racial Laws” in Padova on 23-24 November 2018.
  3. The Chinese Journal of Comparative Law and the School of Law of Xi’an Jiaotong University are co-hosting the inaugural Conference on Comparative Law: The Past, Present and Future on June 9-10, 2018 in Xi’an, China.
  4. The University of Oklahoma College of Law invites submissions for the Tenth Annual Junior Faculty Federal Courts Workshop on September 14-15, 2018.
  5. Applications are now open for Federal Scholar in Residence Program at Eurac Research Institute for Comparative Federalism to be held in Bolzano/Bozen, South Tyrol – Italyon.

Elsewhere online

  1. David R. Cameron, Catalonia update: Months later, still no government and another election looming, Yale Macmillan Center
  2. Ssemujju Ibrahim Nganda, Why we went to court over age limit law, The Observer
  3. Melinda Haring, Presidential Administration Says Law Requiring Activists to Disclose Assets Is Invalid and Unenforceable, but Ukraine’s Activists Aren’t Buying It, Atlantic Council
  4. Elie Mystal, Originalists Do Not Think Segregation Was Unconstitutional, And Wish You’d Stop Bothering Them About It, Above The Law
  5. Garrett Epps, The Unconstitutional Strike on Syria, The Atlantic
  6. Jennifer Tridgell, The Departed: Implications of the Philippines’ Withdrawal from the ICC, Opinio Juris
  7. Mathieu Fabre-Magnan and Marat Mouradov, Evolution or revolution? The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation Ruling on parallel imports, Lexology
  8. A Practical Guide to Constitution Building: The Design of the Judicial Branch, Constitution Net
  9. M Rafiqul Islam, Constitutionality of army deployment in Bangladesh parliamentary elections, Constitution Net
  10. Gila Stopler, Upsetting the Israeli Jewish-Democratic Balance: From the Declaration of Establishment to the Nation-State Bill, Constitution Net
  11. Guma el-Gamaty, Libya’s road to peace: Constitution first, then elections, Constitution Project
Print Friendly
Published on April 23, 2018
Author:          Filed under: Developments

I-CONnect Symposium on “Constitutional Boundaries”

Richard Albert, The University of Texas at Austin

This week, I-CONnect will host an online symposium on “Constitutional Boundaries,” the subject of a Workshop convened by Farrah Ahmed (Melbourne), Adam Perry (Oxford) and me at Melbourne Law School with the support of Allen Myers Oxford-MLS Research Partnership. In addition to the Workshop, the Research Partnership funded a stay in Melbourne for Adam Perry and me to collaborate on a paper with Farrah Ahmed. That paper, entitled “Judging Constitutional Conventions,” is now forthcoming in the International Journal of Constitutional Law. It is available here in its original form, prior to substantial revisions that have since been made.

The online symposium will feature short posts from the following scholars, in addition to a jointly-authored post by Farrah Ahmed, Adam Perry and me:

1. N.W. Barber
Professor of Constitutional Law and Theory
Trinity College
Oxford University

2. Jeff King
Professor of Law
Faculty of Laws
University College London

3. Janet McLean
Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
The University of Auckland

4. Peter C. Oliver
Vice Dean and Professor
Common Law Section, Faculty of Law
University of Ottawa

5. Adrienne Stone
Kathleen Fitzpatrick Australian Laureate Fellow, Redmond Barry Distinguished Professor
Director of the Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies
The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Law School

6. Lael K Weis
Senior Lecturer
The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Law School

The Workshop focused on questions relating to where the boundaries of constitutions are drawn, and the normative and legal significance of these boundaries. We hope that readers will find the upcoming posts interesting and provocative, and also useful for their own research.

Print Friendly
Published on April 23, 2018
Author:          Filed under: Analysis

The Venezuelan Supreme Court in Exile

Manuel Casas, doctoral candidate, Yale Law School and Rolando Seijas, doctoral candidate, Cambridge University, Faculty of Law

On April 92018 a group of Venezuelan Supreme Court judges gathered in the Colombian Senate to decide whether to initiate a criminal proceeding against Venezuela’s authoritarian president, Nicolas Maduro. The opposition-controlled parliament—the National Assembly—had appointed these judges to the Supreme Court on July 212017. Shortly after their appointment, most of these judges were persecuted by the government and had to flee abroad. Once outside Venezuela these judges have been operating, or trying to operate, as a Supreme Court in exile. The appointments came in the midst of street violence caused by the confrontation between protesting civilians and military and police officers. The protests caused the deaths of at least 100 persons. Its origin was a stalemate between the National Assembly, Maduro and the judicial power he controlled.

In Bogota, the Venezuelan judges decided to allow proceedings against Maduro.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on April 22, 2018
Author:          Filed under: Developments

The Scope and Limits of the European Arrest Warrant: The Case of Catalan Exiles

[Editor’s Note: We welcome comments in response to this post, as we do to all posts. Please contact Richard Albert and David Landau by email to submit a response for publication consideration.]

Antoni Abat i Ninet, Professor Constitutional Law, Faculty of Law – University of Copenhagen and Joan Queralt Jiménez, Professor of Criminal Law, Faculty of Law – University of Barcelona

Sixteen Catalan representatives and the leaders of two grassroots associations are currently facing severe criminal charges in Spain for organising and celebrating a referendum of self-determination of 1 October 2017. This consultation was banned by the Constitutional Court and repressed violently by the Spanish armed police.

Unlike the previous criminal charges against former Catalan representatives for organising a symbolic popular consultation on independence on 9 November 2014,[1] nine people have to this day been imprisoned for more than 175 days, in pre-trail detention and facing charges of rebellion (among others) which carries a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison, if found guilty. The pre-trail imprisonment of these political leaders and grassroots activists in undignified and inhumane conditions is unjustified in the view of many. The nine political prisoners are imprisoned in the Madrid area at 600 km from home. The policy of dispersal under which prisoners are removed from their families is in addition a punishment for the prisoner’s family and loved ones, since they are forced to undertake long and difficult journeys, involving a high risk of accidents.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on April 20, 2018
Author:          Filed under: Developments

Understanding Turkey’s Restructured System for Judicial Appointments and Promotions

Dr. Ali Dursun Ulusoy, Professor of Law at Ankara University, Former Justice of Turkish Council of State (Danistay), Visiting Scholar, UCLA Law[*]

In some countries including Turkey, a special board of judges (and prosecutors) is in charge of nationwide appointments (for everything from regional to apex courts), reshuffles, reassignments, removals and disciplinary procedures of judges (and prosecutors). Under such systems, judicial independence will depend in some measure on the structure of these boards and their methods for administering appointments.

The Turkish constitutional amendments passed by referendum in April 2017 immensely affected Turkey both legally and politically. By far the lion’s share of international attention has focused on the fact that the amendments shifted the country from a parliamentary to a presidential system. Comparatively less attention was paid to the impact of the amendments on enhancing political control over the judiciary. Following the amendments, the membership of the Board of Judges and Prosecutors (BJP)[1] is entirely designated by the political powers (the President and Parliament), greatly reducing judicial independence.

The new structure of the BJP

In the previous version of the Constitution, two-thirds of BJP members were designated by member vote of the apex courts as well as the judges and prosecutors of the first instance courts. With the new system, none of the BJP members are elected by the judiciary. Even though a majority of its members must be composed of judges and prosecutors, the members of BJP are now entirely appointed by the political authorities (the President and Parliament). In the final version of the amendment, the Parliament designates seven members, the president appoints four more, and the minister of justice as well as the undersecretary of the ministry of justice serve as permanent members (Art.159).

The members to be elected by Parliament must receive the support of at least a three-fifhts majority of that body. If this threshold cannot be met, lots will be drawn to select between the two candidates that received the most votes. This procedure is designed to avoid appointments by a simple majority; the objective is to ensure greater parliamentary consensus on the appointment of BJP members. Thus, in cases where a three-fifts majority cannot be met in Parliament, it becomes possible for some lucky opposition candidate to be appointed.[2]

In fact, the earlier procedure was also problematic. Under that process. appointments for a majority of BJP positions were made through a vote by the entire corps of judges and prosecutors. In particular, well-organized but ultimately illegitimate groups[3] were able to organize slates in the judicial elections that enabled them to manipulate the appointments and promotions processes of the judiciary through domination of the BJP.[4] The newly adopted 2017 amendments simply bypass the judicial branch entirely in determining the composition of the BJP.

Moreover, the provisions revising the structure of the BJP and judicial appointments came into effect as soon as the referendum results were announced. Whereas other provisions that were part of the referendum package would took delayed effect—not becoming operative until the change to a presidential system in 2019—the changes to the BJP were immediate. The rushed timing of the implementation of the changes to the BJP’s composition is strongly suggestive of a desire to assert full political control of the judiciary at the earliest possible date.

Read the rest of this entry…

Print Friendly
Published on April 19, 2018
Author:          Filed under: Analysis

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

Developments in Constitutional Courts

  1. The Supreme Court of India ruled that the Constitution guarantees the right to dress, eat and love and that must be protected by the judiciary.
  2. The Constitutional Court of Germany ruled unconstitutional the current property tax regime because the assessment violates the fundamental right to equal treatment.
  3. The Supreme Court of Pakistan ruled on requirement for Parliament’s elections.
  4. The Trinidad and Tobago Constitutional Court ruled buggery law unconstitutional.
  5. Massachusetts’s Supreme Judicial Court refused to block Exxon climate fraud investigation.

In the News

  1. Ivory Coast inaugurated its first Senate.
  2. The Constitutional Court of Spain denied a second appeal for Jordi Sanchez, Catalan political activist.
  3. The UK government will challenge Scotland’s Brexit Bill in Supreme Court.
  4. France signed protocol number 16 to the European Convention of Human Rights thus bringing the instrument into force within the member States.
  5. The Constitutional Court of Jordan and the Supreme Court of Egypt signed a Memorandum of Understanding to enhance cooperation in accordance with the laws and regulations of the countries.

New Scholarship

  1. Three handbooks on “The Right to Liberty and Security”, “Freedom of Expression” and “Freedom of Assembly and Association” were published under the Joint Project of the European Union and the Council of Europe on “Supporting the Individual Application to the Constitutional Court in Turkey”.
  2. Elisa Arcioni, We, What People? Constitutional identity in Australia, This Century’s Review, Vol. 2, 34-36, 2017 (examining the link between constitution and the nation through the example of the Australian Constitution)
  3. John Vlahoplus, Natural Born Citizen: A Response to Thomas H. Lee, American University Law Review Forum (Forthcoming), (Responding and disputing Thomas H. Lee’s conclusion)
  4. Luke Beck, Religious Freedom and the Australian Constitution: Origins and Future, Routledge 2018, (examining the origins of Australia’s constitutional religious freedom provision) (20% discount code FLR40)
  5. Francesco Palermo, Karl Kossler, Comparative federalism, Constitutional Arrangements and Case Law, Hart Publishing 2017, (exploring the subject of federalism from the perspective of comparative constitutional law)
  6. Mark Elliott, Jack Williams, Alison L Young, The UK Constitution after Miller Brexit and Beyond, Hart Publishing 2018 (evaluating the decision in Miller, providing a detailed analysis of the reasoning in the judgment and its longer-term consequences for the UK constitution through the period of Brexit and beyond

Calls for Papers and Announcements

  1. The Centre de Droit Public Compare, University of Paris II – Pantheon-Assas will hold a seminar on Internationalization of Administrative Law (L’internationalisation du droit administratif) in Paris on May 24-26, 2018
  2. The Chinese Journal of Comparative Law (Oxford University Press) and the School of Law of Xi’an Jiaotong University call for papers for the inaugural Conference on Comparative Law: The Past, Present and Future to be held on June 9-10, 2018 in Xi’an, China.
  3. The Faculty of Law, Masaryk University in Brno, Czech Republic calls for papers for a Qualitative Research in Law Conference which will be held on October 26, 2018.
  4. The Wisconsin Law Review is seeking topic proposals for its annual symposium issue. The symposium will be held on September 28, 2018, and the call for topic proposals closes on May 5, 2018.
  5. The Australian National University‘s Centre for Law, Arts & Humanities and its Centre for Arab & Islamic Studies call for papers for a symposium entitled After the Rule: Interpretation in Comparative and Cross-Cultural Perspective to be held on Friday, September 21, 2018.

Elsewhere Online

  1. Tom Daly, An African Judicial Network: Building Community, Delivering Justice (Final Report December 2017)
  2. Maxime St-Hilaire, De nombreuses infractions pénales provinciales seraient-elles invalides? Blogue a qui de droit
  3. Koen de Winter and Michaël De Vroey, Belgium: Constitutional Court allows third-party opposition against arbitral awards,
  4. Adam Liptak, Supreme Court Rules on Terrorism, Whistle-Blowers and Prisoners, The New York Times
  5. Oday Talal Mahmood, Toward the Effective Judicial Review in Iraq,
  6. Maja Sahadzic, Constitutional Asymmetry as a tool to manage diversity, 50 shades of federalism
  7. Brian Christopher Jones, Wightman and How Not to Advance the Law, UK Constitutional Law Association Blog
  8. Ruthann Robson, District Judge Holds Transgender Military Ban Subject to Strict Scrutiny, Constitutional Prof Blog
Print Friendly
Published on April 17, 2018
Author:          Filed under: Developments