Blog of the International Journal of Constitutional Law

What’s New in Public Law

Maja Sahadžić, Ph.D. Researcher, University of Antwerp

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 Constitutional Court in Ukraine declared unconstitutional the article of the Criminal Code on criminal prosecution for the unlawful enrichment of officials.
  2. The Constitutional Court in Hungary ruled that a recent prohibition known as “Stop Soros” on promoting illegal migration in the Hungarian penal code is not against the constitution but its stipulations cannot be applied to activities “aimed at providing humanitarian treatment or reducing the suffering of the needy”.
  3. The Constitutional Court in Bulgaria declared that the provisions of the Judicial System Act stipulating that judges should be removed from office if they were charged with a crime committed in the exercise of their judicial functions is not unconstitutional.
  4. The Supreme Court in the United States of America ruled that the International Finance Corporation can be sued in United States courts.
  5. The Supreme Court in Israel rejected a petition to bar publication of the Attorney General’s findings in three investigations of the Israeli Prime Minister until after the elections in April.
  6. The Supreme Court in Philippines ordered the preventive suspension of two judges in two regional trial courts after learning they are distant relatives thus leaving the courts without judges to hear cases.
  7. The Supreme Court in Nigeria reserved a judgement in the case of alleged false declaration of assets involving the suspended Chief Justice until 17 May 2019.

In the News

  1. The Japanese Prime Minister vowed to proceed the relocation of a United States military base in Okinawa despite the relocation was rejected in a referendum held at the island.
  2. The Parliament in the United Kingdom voted overwhelmingly in favor of March vote on the extension of Article 50.
  3. Ukraine’s opposition leader and presidential candidate registered a bill amending the criminal code with the aim to return criminal responsibility for illicit enrichment of the nation’s officials.
  4. The Parliament in Egypt endorsed the constitutional amendments that will allow the President in office to stay in power until 2034.
  5. The Parliament in Denmark passed a “paradigm change” asylum bill that will increase restrictions on residence permits and and reduce a social welfare benefit.
  6. The European Parliament voted to approve a range of new vehicle safety standards including automatic detection of pedestrians and cyclists, and a new direct vision standard for lorries and buses to enable drivers to have a better view of other road users around their vehicles.

New Scholarship

  1. Richard Albert, Vanessa MacDonnell and Paul Daly (eds.), The Canadian Constitution in Transition (University of Toronto Press, 2019) (featuring contributions from emerging and established scholars on the future of Canadian constitutional law)
  2. Tom Gerald Daly, Unfinished Revolutions: Constitutional Pasts and Futures in Ireland and Mexico, Estudos Internacionais (2018) (examining how both Ireland’s and Mexico’s constitutional histories for the past century relate to two ‘unfinished revolutions’, in which the hopes and aspirations of the initial revolutions in each state have been only partially realised).
  3. Paolo Dardanelli, John Kincaid, Alan Fenna, André Kaiser, André Lecours, and Ajay Kumar Singh, Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Theorizing Dynamic De/Centralization in Federations, Publius (2018) (developing a conceptual, methodological, and theoretical framework for analyzing dynamic de/centralization in federations and discussing its five main properties of direction, magnitude, tempo, form, and instruments)
  4. Patricia Popelier and Samantha Bielen, How courts decide federalism disputes: legal merit, attitudinal effects, and strategic considerations in the jurisprudence of the Belgian Constitutional Court, Publius (2018) (exploring how constitutional courts impact the centralization grade of multi-tiered systems through a classification for measuring court’s position in federalism disputes and tests what determines variations across decisions within one court)
  5. Alberto López-Basaguren, Leire Escajedo San-Epifanio (eds.) Claims for Secession and Federalism, A Comparative Study with a Special Focus on Spain (2019) (explaining the most important current seccessionist claims in Western Countries, discussing the relationship between the claims for secession and federal systems, and debating the topic that dominates the political agenda in Spain)
  6. Arthur Benz, Shared Rule vs Self-Rule? Bicameralism, Power-Sharing and the ‘Joint Decision Trap’, Perspectives on Federalism (2018) (identifying conditions for the risks of ineffective compromises and fails in joint decision-making and exploring appropriate ways to adjust institutional designs of bicameralism accordingly bearing in mind that significant institutional reforms of bicameral systems are difficult to achieve)
  7. Miguel Beltrán de Felipe, Myths and Realities of Secessionisms, A Constitutional Approach to the Catalonian Crisis (2019) (exploring some of the key issues of contemporary secessionist nationalism, including its relationship with sovereignty, the right to have a referendum, and the capacity of a particular territory to amend the constitution in order to admit secession)
  8. Francesco Palermo, Beyond Second Chambers: Alternative Representation of Territorial Interests and Their Reasons, Perspectives on Federalism (2018) (exploring the reasons behind the emergence of alternative, executive-based institutions linked to ineffectiveness of the second chambers as territorial bodies)
  9. Rivka Weill, Secession and the Prevalence of Both Militant Democracy and Eternity Clauses Worldwide, Cardozo Law Review (2018) (explaining how democracies engage in a delicate game to chase and eliminate secessionist political mobilization and arguing that constitutions’ treatment of secession reveals that “We the People” is a territorial concept)

Call for Papers and Announcements

  1. The Brazilian Journal of Public Policy invites papers for the special issue “Latin American Constitutionalism: What Have We Got In Common?”. The deadline for submissions is 31 May 2019.
  2. The research groups of the Faculty of Government and European Studies at the New University and the Re-forma welcome abstract for the international conference “Judicial Ideology under Empirical Scrutiny” on 16 September 2019 in Ljubljana. The deadline for submission of abstracts in 17 May 2019.
  3. The European Yearbook of Constitutional Law invites proposals for its 2020 issue on the theme of “The City in Constitutional Law”. The deadline for proposals is 30 April 2019.
  4. The Chicago-Kent College of Law accepts entries for the 2019 Chicago-Kent College of Law/Roy C. Palmer Civil Liberties Prize. Eligible books and articles should focus on the tension between civil liberties and national security. The deadline for submissions is 1 July 2019.
  5. GNLU Journal of Law and Economics welcomes submission of papers focusing on the economic analysis of law. The deadline for submissions is 15 March 2019.
  6. The University of Potsdam invites proposals for the AHRI 2019 Conference “Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law: Challenges Ahead” on 6-7 September 2019 in Potsdam. The deadline for submissions is 8 March 2019.
  7. The Católica Research Centre for the Future of Law invites papers for the conference “The Law of Artificial Intelligence” on 19 September 2019 in Lisbon. The deadline for submissions is 17 May 2019.
  8. The Canterbury Christ Church University’s Politics and International Relations programme and the Centre for European Studies organize the Politics Summer School “Federalism, Conflict Resolution, and Good Governance” in Cantenbury on 10–24 August 2019.
  9. Comparative Constitutional Law and Administrative Law Quarterly invites submissions for its next volume. The deadline for submissions is 24 March 2019. 

Elsewhere Online

  1. Francesco Palermo, What does EU tells us about federalism, 50 Shades of Federalism
  2. Michael G Breen, The federalism debates in Nepal and Myanmar: from ethnic conflict to secession-risk management, 50 Shades of Federalism
  3. David R. Cameron, May wins vote in House after giving it power to reject no-deal Brexit and request article 50 extension if it rejects withdrawal agreement again, Yale MacMillan Center
  4. Oreste Pollicino and Giorgio Repetto, Not to be Pushed Aside: the Italian Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice, Verfassungsblog
  5. Adeel Hussain, To Catch a Spy: India v. Pakistan at the ICJ, Verfassungsblog
  6. Natalia Brigagão, The story of Brazilian constitutional dignity – and why it matters to constitutional and human rights studies, IACL-AIDC BLOG
  7. Bilyana Petkova, Privacy as Europe’s First Amendment, IACL-AIDC BLOG
  8. Mark Elliott, The Healthcare Bill: A case study in the implications (and dangers) of legislating for Brexit, Public Law for Everyone
  9. Robert Craig, Why Royal Consent Is Required for the Proposed Article 50 Extension Bill, UK Constitutional Law Association
  10. Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr, Hot off the bench: Constitutional Court confirms it is not necessary to hold a pre-suspension hearing, Lexology
  11. Adam Bemma, Constitutional Court to meet next week as Thai Raksa Chart faces ban over Princess Ubolratana nomination, Aljazeera

Print Friendly
Published on March 4, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Reviews

Special Symposium on “Towering Judges”—Jointly Hosted at I-CONnect and IACL-IADC Blog—Introduction: Towering Judges in Comparative Perspective

[Editor’s Note: We are delighted to co-host a special online symposium on the concept of a “towering judge.” This symposium—hosted jointly for the first time both here at I-CONnect and at the IACL-AIDC Blog—emerges from a conference held earlier this year at The Chinese University of Hong Kong, organized by Professors Rehan Abeyratne (CUHK) and Iddo Porat (CLB). We begin, today, with both blogs simultaneously publishing the Introduction to this symposium. Over the course of the next month, I-CONnect and the IACL-AIDC Blog will alternate the publication of posts on the conference theme. The symposium will conclude on April 5, 2019, with both blogs simultaneously publishing the Conclusion to this symposium. We thank the symposium organizers and our colleagues at the IACL-AIDC Blog—Erika Arban and Tom Gerald Daly—for this special collaboration.]

Iddo Porat, College of Law and Business, Tel Aviv, and Rehan Abeyratne, The Chinese University of Hong Kong

On January 25-26, we convened a conference at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Faculty of Law, bringing together leading constitutional scholars to discuss a new topic in comparative perspective: ‘Towering Judges’. All told, we discussed 13 judges from 12 jurisdictions and two general papers. This Blog Symposium, co-hosted by IACL-AIDC and ICONnect, will give readers a snapshot of these judges and the general themes we discussed. In this introductory post, we aim to provide some background and framing to this project.

Our first challenge was to decide what to call this concept. We considered a few options: the first was Herculean judges, following Dworkin’s hypothetical judge, Hercules. Other candidates were Hero Judges, Super Judges, or Oversized Judges. We finally opted for Towering Judges, which we hope catches the essential characteristics of the phenomenon while allowing enough variance not to exclude too many important examples. At a minimum, a towering judge connotes a judge that is in some respects “taller” than other judges, and therefore individually distinguishable from them. Thus, there is something individualistic about a towering judge that we think is essential to the phenomenon. Towering also connotes not just a little bit taller, but taller in some important or substantial way. But this still leaves, intentionally, a lot open: it does not say or determine in what way the judge is taller than other judges. It also does not say whether taller is necessarily better – is he or she taller in a good or in a problematic way? Do “towering” figures also need to be liberal, anti-formalist or expansionist? Perhaps we can have towering conservative judges, or judges who are towering for holding back negative change rather than promoting positive change. Our conception also allows different degrees of “toweringness”. Towering judges could be those that completely reshape the judicial, legal and even societal landscape, but their impact need not be so far-reaching to be viewed as such. We should say also that our focus is on judges who had a towering impact on constitutional law – a focus that may not be entirely analytically justified, but pragmatically narrows the scope of the phenomenon.

Read the rest of this entry…
Print Friendly
Published on March 4, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Analysis

The News Media and Democracy under Bolsonaro: A “Trump of the Tropics”?

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

Democratic backsliding is certainly a hot topic in Brazil, especially after the election of the far-right President Jair Bolsonaro. Such a trend could already be observed in an empirical study Zachary Elkins wrote based on the Varieties of Democracy (V-DEM) Index 2017, where Brazil is placed in what he calls “trouble spots” among other eight countries: Nicaragua, Poland, Thailand, Turkey, Hungary, Ecuador, Venezuela and Bolivia.[1] Although Brazil still presents, according to this data, a relatively high level of democracy among the eight (only comparable to Poland and Hungary), an interesting phenomenon is visible: a fast improvement of democracy from a very low standard, followed by a fast decline of democracy. Interestingly enough, such a pattern is also found in Poland and Hungary, and possibly this is due to the remarkable transition from authoritarianism to democracy and the growing institutionalization of practices in these countries right thereafter. The decline also seems to follow, at least graphically, a similar path and is related to the rise of Law and Justice Party (PiS) in Poland, Viktor Orban and the Fidesz party in Hungary, and the political crisis that culminated in President Dilma Rousseff’s impeachment and the subsequent rise of Jair Bolsonaro (though his electoral victory was not yet captured by the Varieties of Democracy data).

Nevertheless, Poland and Hungary are not normally seen as the main points of comparison with the recent events in Brazil. In fact, the Bolsonaro phenomenon looks quite distinct. Perhaps more apt are comparisons between Jair Bolsonaro and Donald Trump, regardless of the distinct degrees of democratic resilience and strength of institutions in both countries. Omar G. Encarnación, in a column for Foreign Policy, for example, argues that Bolsonaro is, in fact, “an outright reactionary and the best manifestation yet of the ‘Trumpinfication’ of the Latin American right,” which appears to be a good definition. Ishaan Tharoof, from the Washington Post, argues that “Bolsonaro joins Trump’s right-wing axis”, as he identifies similar behaviors between the two leaders. In fact, Bolsonaro has been dubbed the “Trump of the Tropics” or “Trump of South America,” this last by Trump himself. Context also matters. Perhaps the fact that both countries are presidential and part of Americas may help explain this perception. The way their elections took place, with massive use of social media and a radical shift from traditional campaigning, also adds to such a comparison.

Read the rest of this entry…
Print Friendly
Published on February 28, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Developments

Constitutional Dialogues and Abortion Law Reform in Argentina: What’s Next?

Paola Bergallo, Universidad Torcuato Di Tella, Buenos Aires, Argentina

[Editor’s note: This is one of our 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 2019, see here.]

During 2018 thousands of women took over the streets of Argentina demanding the modernization of abortion law. They sought to liberalize a regime dating from 1921 and operating in a constitutional limbo. However, after the Senate defeat of a bill last August, this limbo persists and, in certain provinces, has even worsened. How has the constitutional limbo surrounding the regulation of abortion emerged? What has happened since the defeat? And is it now time for a dialogic move back to the Supreme Court, while waiting for the political conversation to reopen?

Read the rest of this entry…
Print Friendly
Published on February 27, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Analysis

Brazil’s New Government: Risks to Constitutional Democracy

–Antonio Moreira Maués, Federal University of Pará

With the election of Jair Bolsonaro as President, Brazil definitively joined the list of countries in which constitutional democracy is in danger. Although the 1988 Constitution had marked the transition to democracy, and had functioned decently for over two decades, the system  has been under serious strain since the re-election of Dilma Rousseff in 2014, when the opposition launched an immediate campaign for her impeachment. This political battle ended in August 2016, when the Senate decided that Rousseff was guilty of the charges of breaking budget laws, and replaced her with Vice-President Michel Temer.

Despite the fact that the impeachment trial followed the legal procedures, the removal decision was highly contested and criticized as non-democratic. The  opposition, which had a majority in both houses of the Congress, was accused of undermining the presidential election to gain power. Indeed, just a year later, the lower house refused to open an impeachment process for bribery charges against President Temer, even though it was requested by the Head of the Federal Public Prosecution.

Regardless of the evaluation of Rousseff’s impeachment, these events demonstrated that constitutional rules in Brazil are no longer channeling political conflict. In the midst of serious economic recession, huge corruption scandals and increasing levels of criminality, the lack of agreement between political agents about the rules of the game has put democracy into crisis.

Read the rest of this entry…
Print Friendly
Published on February 27, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Developments

Five Questions with Wojciech Sadurski

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

In “Five Questions” here at I-CONnect, we invite a public law scholar to answer five questions about her research.

This edition of “Five Questions” features a short video interview with Wojciech Sadurski, Challis Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Sydney and currently the Mulligan Distinguished Visiting Professor of Law at Fordham University.

Asked to identify his favorite publication among his entire body of work thus far, Sadurski chose “Calderón’s Conundrums, or: Where Do You Draw the Line?,” available for download here.

To nominate someone for a future edition of “Five Questions,” please email

Print Friendly
Published on February 26, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Reviews

Invitation–Survey–What More can ICON-S do to Support Early-Career Scholars?

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

As we announced last month, the Co-Presidents of the International Society of Public Law (ICON-S) have authorized the creation of a Committee on Early-Career Scholars. The charge of the Committee is to produce a report on what more ICON-S can do as an institution to support junior scholars.

At this stage, the Committee invites all interested persons to complete a short survey to help us prepare our recommendations. The survey period opens now and will close on Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 5pm New York/Toronto time. The survey is available here.

As a reminder, the full Committee appears below.

  • Rehan Abeyratne (CUHK)
  • Richard Albert (Texas) [CHAIR]
  • Michaela Hailbronner (Muenster)
  • Aileen Kavanagh (Oxford)
  • Jaclyn Neo (NUS)
  • Mariana Velasco Rivera (Yale)
  • Juliano Zaiden Benvindo (Brasilia)

We thank you for your ideas about what more ICON-S can do to support early-career scholars.

Print Friendly
Published on February 25, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Reviews

What’s New in Public Law

–Nausica Palazzo, Ph.D. Researcher in Comparative Constitutional Law, University of Trento

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 US Supreme Court incorporated through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. 
  2. The German Constitutional Court has held that the disenfranchisement of persons placed under full guardianship and of criminal offenders confined in a psychiatric hospital is unconstitutional.
  3. The Supreme Court of India directed states to take “prompt” action to prevent incidents against Kashmiris, after the recent terror attacks.
  4. A 16-state coalition filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Trump’s declaration of a national emergency, made in an effort to fund the border wall between the US and Mexico.
  5. Alaska’s Supreme Court halted the 2013 regulations limiting Medicaid coverage of abortion services.
  6. Minority parties in Lithuania challenged the constitutionality of the Law on the Referendum and, consequently, of the referendum that would reduce the size of the Parliament.
  7. In declaring inadmissible an appeal against Turkey, the ECHR declared that it has no jurisdiction to consider whether a construction project could undermine a cultural heritage.
  8. The Supreme Court of India agreed to review its verdict in the controversial Rafale deal case, which gave the greenlight to the government jets deal with France.
  9. The South Africa’s Constitutional Court modified the test that municipalities should apply to decide on building applications.
  10. The High Court of Kenya postponed until May the decision on decriminalizing homosexual conduct.

In the News

  1. Brazilian president proposes a constitutional amendment to reform the costly pension system.
  2. Nigeria orders foreign oil and gas companies to pay over 20 billion in back taxes and royalties.
  3. According to a UK legislative report, Facebook massively violated UK data privacy and competition laws.
  4. A Turkish court of appeals upheld the convictions for terrorism of 19 opposition journalists.
  5. Amnesty International filed an amnesty appeal in favor of Cameroon’s opposition leader and supporters facing death penalty over rebellion charges for a peaceful protest.
  6. The Croatian Parliament decided not to hold two nation-wide referenda on withdrawing from the Istanbul Convention and on amending the electoral law.
  7. The South African government challenged the rules forcing Olympic athletes to lower testosterone levels, as specifically targeting Olympic campion Semenya. 
  8. The former President of Maldives was brought into custody over bribery allegations.

New Scholarship

  1. Rehan Abeyratne, More Structure, More Deference: Proportionality in Hong Kong, in Po Jen Yap & Mark Tushnet (Eds.), Proportionality in Asia (forthcoming, 2019) (exploring the ways the proportionality test is applied in Hong Kong’s constitutional jurisprudence, and arguing that, while increasingly articulated, the test has gradually become more deferential to governmental authority and expertise).
  2. Or Bassok, The Schmitelsen Court: The Question of Legitimacy, German Law Journal (forthcoming, 2019) (arguing that several courts worldwide are fulfilling Kelsen’s vision of a court as the guardian of the constitution yet possessing the mission, the means to achieve it, and the source of legitimacy that Schmitt envisioned for the president as the guardian of the constitution. Hence, these courts are Schmit-elesen courts).
  3. Laure Clément-Wilz (Ed.), The Political Role of the Court of Justice of the European Union (in French) (Bruylant, 2019) (analyzing the political choices made by and the political role of the Court of Justice of the European Union).
  4. Tom Gerald Daly, Democratic Decay: Conceptualising an Emerging Research Field, Hague Journal on the Rule of Law (arguing that conceiving of the scattered cross-disciplinary literature on the deterioration of democracy as a research field and providing an account of recent conceptual development can help to map a rapidly developing landscape, maximise the analytical utility of key concepts, identify resonances and duplication among concepts and across discrete literatures, and can help to ensure that this emerging quasi-field develops in a more coherent and rigorous manner)
  5. Stephen Gardbaum, Pushing the Boundaries: Judicial Review of Legislative Procedures in South Africa, in Constitutional Court Review IX (forthcoming, 2019) (analyzing the current comparative outer boundary of the practice of judicial review of legislative processes, in South Africa, and presenting a defense of it that suggests the need for a friendly amendment to Ely-style political process theory).
  6. Ming-Sung Kuo, Between Choice and Tradition: Rethinking Remedial Grace Periods and Unconstitutionality Management in a Comparative Light, 36 UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal (forthcoming, no. 2, 2019) (comparing the use of remedial grace periods in constitutional review under the Civil Law and Common Law models, and offering the case study of Taiwan to argue that both the role of the judiciary and legal tradition contribute to shaping the doctrine of remedial grace periods).
  7. Bilyana Petkova, Privacy as Europe’s First Amendment, 25 European Law Journal (forthcoming, no. 2, 2019) (arguing that Europe is experiencing privacy-as-constitutional identity, in a similar way as the U.S. did with freedom of speech).

Calls for Papers and Announcements

  1. Submissions are invited from comparative law scholars around the world for a works-in-progress roundtable on all subjects of comparative law to be held at the University of Texas at Austin on May 21, 2019. Preference will be given to early-career scholars as well scholars working on book projects.
  2. The Younger Comparativists Committee of the American Society of Comparative Law (YCC) invites submissions for the Phanor J. Eder LL.B./J.D. Prize in Comparative Law, open to students currently enrolled in a J.D. or LL.B. program. The deadline for submissions is March 3, 2019.
  3. The Chicago-Kent College of Law is now accepting entries for the Chicago-Kent College of Law/Roy C. Palmer Civil Liberties Prize, aimed at honoring scholarship that addresses the tension between civil liberties and national security in contemporary US. Entries are accepted through July 1, 2019.
  4. The Supreme Court Economic Review (SCER) solicits paper submissions for a Roundtable on the Economics of Criminal Procedure, Punishment, and Their Consequences, to be held at Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University in Arlington, Virginia, on March 26-27, 2020. The deadline for submissions is December 20, 2019.
  5. The University of Kent invites applications for the Kent Summer School in Critical Theory, which will be held July 1-12 at the Paris Centre of the University of Kent, in Paris France. Applications are due by March 3, 2019.
  6. University of Leipzig invites applications for the Summer School “Human Rights in Theory and Practice”, to be held on 1-7 September 2019 in Leipzig. The deadline for early bird registration is March 31, 2019.
  7. The European Policy for Intellectual Property association (EPIP) announces its 14th Annual Conference on “The Future of IP”, to be held in Zurich, Switzerland, on September 11-13, 2019. The submission deadline is April 7, 2019.
  8. The British Institute of International and Comparative Law is seeking to appoint a Brexit Research Fellow to investigate the legal implications of Brexit. The application deadline is March 3, 2019.
  9. The University of Leeds – School of Sociology & Social Policy has opened three positions for Marie Sklodowska-Curie Early-Stage Researchers (PhD positions) in Disability Advocacy Research. The deadline to apply is March 14, 2019.
  10. The Universitat Oberta de Catalunya issued a call for 6 postdoctoral research fellowships. The deadline for submitting applications is March 10, 2019.

Elsewhere Online

  1. David R. Cameron, After another Brexit defeat, UK-EU talks continue – and the Article 50 clock keeps ticking, Yale MacMillan Center
  2. Ramesh Ponnuru, Justice Thomas on Libel, National Review
  3. John Morijn & Israel Butler, Tracking Anti-Values MEPs: EP Seat Projections and Rule of Law Protection, Verfassungsblog
  4. Oliver Garner, Henry VII Arrives in Florence: The UK’s Withdrawal from the Convention Establishing a European University Institute, European Law Blog
  5. Vikram Aditya Narayan & Jahnavi Sindhu, A Multi-layered Indian Judicial Crisis: Listing and hearing of cases before the Supreme Court of India, IACL-AIDC BLOG
  6. Lena Riemer, The ECtHR as a drowning ‘Island of Hope’?’ Its impending reversal of the interpretation of collective expulsion is a warning signal, Verfassungsblog
  7. Pierre de Vos, Mistakes tarnish the reputation of our highest court, Daily Maverick
  8. Fola Adeleke, Postponement fuels lack of trust in Nigeria’s ability to hold fair elections, IACL-AIDC BLOG
  9. Cristina Leston Bandeira & Viktoria Spaiser Do parliamentary e-petitions debates enhance public engagement?, The Constitution Unit
  10. Vishakha Choudhary & Vishesh Sharma, The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2018: A Tale of Reneged Promises, OxHRH Blog
  11. Felix Lange, Hard times for voices from the Global South, The Völkerrechtsblog
  12. Nicholas Bagley, The United States Owes Tens of Billions to Insurers, Notice & Comment
Print Friendly
Published on February 25, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Developments

Special Announcement: New ICON·S Chapters Around the World

The Co-Presidents of the International Society of Public Law (ICON·S) are pleased to announce the formation of several new ICON·S Chapters around the world.

The Society has recently welcomed the establishment of the following Chapters: Brazil, Colombia, Germany, Nigeria, Portugal, and Singapore.

The Society looks forward to congratulating members from these new Chapters at our 2019 Annual Conference in Santiago, Chile.

As stated on the ICON·S website, the Society encourages the establishment of national and regional chapters to complement the work of the global association, subject to certain guidelines and criteria. Members who wish to establish a new national or regional chapter should draft the rules of their chapter according to those guidelines and criteria, and should send them for approval to the Executive Committee of the Society.

Congratulations to the new Chapters!

Print Friendly
Published on February 24, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Developments

Five Questions with Mariolina Eliantonio

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

In “Five Questions” here at I-CONnect, we invite a public law scholar to answer five questions about her research.

This edition of “Five Questions” features a short video interview with Mariolina Eliantonio, Professor of European and Comparative Administrative Law at Maastricht University.

One of her most recent papers is “Judicial Review in an Integrated Administration: The Case of ‘Composite Procedures’,” available for download here.

To nominate someone for a future edition of “Five Questions,” please email

Print Friendly
Published on February 23, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Reviews