magnify

I·CONnect

Blog of the International Journal of Constitutional Law

ICON’s Current Issue (Table of Contents)

Volume 17 Issue 2

Table of Contents

Editorial

I•CON Foreword

Ran Hirschl and Ayelet Shachar, Spatial statism

Thirty Years from the Fall of the Berlin Wall: The World after 1989

Cora Chan, Thirty years from Tiananmen: China, Hong Kong, and the ongoing experiment to preserve liberal values in an authoritarian state

Wen-Chen Chang, Back into the Political? Rethinking Judicial, Legal, and Transnational Constitutionalism

Sujit Choudhry, Secession and post-sovereign constitution-making after 1989: Catalonia, Kosovo, and Quebec

Erika de Wet, The role of democratic legitimacy in the recognition of governments in Africa since the end of the Cold War

José M. Díaz de Valdés and Sergio Verdugo, The ALBA constitutional project and political representation

Rosalind Dixon and David Landau, 1989–2019: From democratic to abusive constitutional borrowing

James Fowkes and Michaela Hailbronner, Decolonizing Eastern Europe: A global perspective on 1989 and the world it made

Tom Ginsburg, Thirty years after the fall: An academic perspective

Symposium: Public Law and the New Populism

Neil Walker, Populism and constitutional tension

Paul Blokker, Populism as a constitutional project

Ming-Sung Kuo, Against instantaneous democracy

Tamar Hostovsky Brandes, International law in domestic courts in an era of populism

Bojan Bugarič, Central Europe’s descent into autocracy: A constitutional analysis of authoritarian populism

John Morijn, Responding to “populist” politics at EU level: Regulation 1141/2014 and beyond

Robert Howse, Epilogue: In defense of disruptive democracy—A critique of anti-populism

The I•CONnect-Clough Center 2018 Global Review of Constitutional Law       

Iván Aróstica, Sergio Verdugo and Nicolás Enteiche, 2018 Global Review of Constitutional Law: Chile

Carlos Bernal, Diego González, María Fernanda Barraza, Nicolás Esguerra, Santiago García Jaramillo, and Vicente Benítez, 2018 Global Review of Constitutional Law: Colombia

Book Review Symposium

Review symposium on Bruce Ackerman, Revolutionary Constitutions—Charismatic Leadership and the Rule of Law

Michaela Hailbronner, Introduction:Defending “democratic populism”?  

Arun K. Thiruvengadam, Evaluating Bruce Ackerman’s “Pathways to Constitutionalism” and India as an exemplar of “revolutionary constitutionalism on a human scale”

Diletta Tega, The Constitution of the Italian Republic: Not revolution, but principled liberation

Tomasz Tadeusz Koncewicz, Understanding Polish pacted (r)evolution(s) of 1989 and the politics of resentment of 2015–2018 and beyond

Review Essay

Chien-Chih Lin, Dialogic judicial review and its problems in East Asia. Review of Albert H. Y. Chen, ed., Constitutionalism in Asia in the Early Twenty-First Century; Albert H. Y. Chen & Andrew Hardin, eds., Constitutional Courts in Asia: A Comparative Perspective

Book Reviews

Francis Fukuyama. Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment (David Fowkes)

Jeffrey S. Kahn. Islands of Sovereignty: Haitian Migration and the Borders of Empire (Péter Szigeti)

Erin F. Delaney and Rosalind Dixon, eds. Comparative Judicial Review (Joshua Phang)

Print Friendly
Published on July 4, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Editorials
 

Can the President of the Slovak Constitutional Court Defend It?

Simon Drugda, PhD Candidate at the University of Copenhagen

For the fourth time since February, the Slovak Parliament failed to select candidates to replace constitutional judges whose term of office has expired. Only seven judges remain to run the most powerful court in the country. What is more, as the Parliament enters summer recess, the next round of hearings will not begin until mid-September.

The new President of the Constitutional Court (PCC), Ivan Fiačan, has kept a low profile during the controversy. When the Parliament resumes its business, however, the PCC should be prepared to defend his Court. Two senates of the Court are now defunct because there are not enough judges to staff them. The Court has been overrun with unassigned cases and a terrible backlog.

The PCC has two potent statutory and one informal power that allow him to put pressure on the Parliament and contribute to the selection process: 1) the power to nominate candidates for constitutional judges; 2) to attend parliamentary sessions; and 3) the exclusive power to speak for the Court. In this contribution, I examine these three powers that have great defensive potential.

Read the rest of this entry…
Print Friendly
Published on July 2, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Analysis
 

What’s New in Public Law

Davide Bacis, PhD Student in Constitutional Law, University of Pavia (Italy)

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 Constitutional Court of Indonesia dismissed the appeal of the opposition leader against President Joko Widodo’s win in April elections.
  2. The Constitutional Court of Turkey held that the year-long detention of reporter Deniz Yücel was unlawful.
  3. The US Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals law.
  4. The US Supreme Court ruled that partisan gerrymandering is a political question out of the reach of federal courts.
  5. The Constitutional Court of Kosovo ruled that the mandate and the competences of the team tasked with negotiating with Serbia are unconstitutional.
  6. The US Supreme Court held 5-4 that a federal law imposing longer prison sentences for crimes committed using firearms is vague, hence unconstitutional.

In the News

  1. The six judges of the Moldova Constitutional Court resigned after accusations of political bias.
  2. The Irish Health Minister approved a new programme that will let people access medical cannabis on a limited basis.
  3. The Democratic party held the first two debates of the 2020 primaries for the presidential elections.
  4. The EU and Mercosur reached a political agreement for a new trade deal.
  5. Spain’s Acting Prime Minister will set a date for the confirmation vote.
  6. The UK Parliament passed legislation setting a goal for zero carbon emission by 2050.
  7. The leader of the Danish Social Democrats has been chosen to lead the Danish Government.

New Scholarship

  1. M. De Visser and B. Ngoc Son, Glocalised constitution-making in the twenty-first century: Evidence from Asia, 8 Global Constitutionalism (2019) (developing an analytical framework to study the interplay between global pressures and domestic interests in constitution-making and illustrating its application with the help of a selected recent Asian case studies).
  2. J. Sapiano, Peace Settlements and Human Rights, iCourts Working Paper Series No. 161 (2019) (showing, through the help of three case studies, how the tension between peace and human rights in transitional contexts can be conducted to a resolution by the work of courts).
  3. S. Baer, The Rule of – and not by any – Law. On Constitutionalism, 71 Current Legal Problems (2019) (offering an analysis on the recent attacks on the rule of law by a plurality of actors and arguing for a defense of the basis of constitutionalism).
  4. B. Fassbender, The state’s unabandoned claim to be the center of the legal universe, 16 International Journal of Constitutional Law (2019) (analyzing how, even if states are not the only actors within the international legal order, the central position of the state is still manifesting itself in a variety of relationships).
  5. D. Fox, Births Rights and Wrongs. How Medicine and Technology are Remaking Reproduction and the Law (2019) (identifying core reproductive interests in pregnancy and parenthood, and lifting the curtain on reproductive negligence).
  6. L. Rothstein, Would the ADA Pass Today?: Disability Rights in an Age of Partisan Polarization, 12 St. Louis U. J. Health L. & Pol’y (2019) (recounting the story behind the passage of the ADA and providing  a comprehensive analysis on its diminished impact due to administrative agency actions).
  7. S. Hargreaves, Grinding down the Edges of the Free Expression Right in Hong Kong, 44 Brooklyn Journal of International Law (2019) (arguing that the policies adopted by the Government of Hong Kong against unwelcome political speech are unconstitutional and counterproductive).
  8. R. Eksteen, The Role of the Highest Courts of the United States of America and South Africa, and the European Court of Justice in Foreign Affairs (2019) (providing an intensive and well documented examination of the judiciary’s role in foreign affairs).
  9. S. Meijer, H. Annison and A. O’Loughlin (eds.), Fundamental Rights and Legal Consequences of Criminal Conviction (2019) (providing a comprehensive analysis of the restrictions suffered by convicted offenders and discussing whether their fundamental rights are sufficiently protected).
  10.  J.J. Bosland, Restraining “Extraneous” Prejudicial Publicity: Victoria and New South Wales Compared, 41 University of New South Wales Law Journal (2019) (exploring the powers available to Victoria and New South Wales courts to restrain the publication of “extraneous” prejudicial material).

Call for Papers and Announcements

  1. The Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies in Pisa (Italy) invites scholars to apply for a Visiting Professorship starting between December 2019 and December 2020. Applications should be submitted by September 27, 2019.
  2. The IACL (International Association of Constitutional Law) is glad to announce the constitution of a new research group on “Gender and Constitutions”.
  3. The UC Berkeley, the University of Bologna (Italy) and the University of Parma (Italy) are inviting scholars to attend the “Italian-American Dialogues on Constitutionalism in the 21st Century” on “Global Law vs National Law?” that will be held on October 10, 2019 in Bologna and on October 11, 2019 in Parma.
  4. The Italian Chapter of the International Society of Public Law (ICON•S) welcomes submissions for its conference on “New Technologies and the Future of Public Law” that will be held in Florence on November 22-23, 2019. Panels and papers proposals must be submitted by July 10, 2019.
  5. TConsult and Taylor’s Law School welcome submissions for the “International Conference on the Future of Law and Legal Practice” that will be held in Selangor (Malaysia) on October 15-16, 2019. Abstracts of no more than 500 words must be submitted by July 31, 2019.
  6. The University of Nairobi, School of Law welcomes submissions for the “African Network of Constitutional Lawyers Biennial Conference” on “The Paradox of Constitutionalism in Africa: Reflecting on 10 Years of the Kenyan Constitution” that will be held on August, 26-27-28, 2020. Abstracts of no more than 500 words must be submitted by July 31, 2019.

Elsewhere Online

  1. Democratic Decay & Renewal (DEM-DEC), Global Research Update on democratic decay and renewal of June 2019, DEM-DEC
  2. David R. Cameron, European Council still at odds over next Commission president and other EU leaders, Yale Macmillan Center
  3. S. Lénárd, Technology is constantly changing the degree of privacy that people may expect, and the courts in response change constitutional rules – conversation with Orin Kerr, Professor of Law, precedens.mandiner
  4. M. Kuo, Hong Kong’s Extradition Bill and Taiwan’s Sovereignty Dilemma, The Diplomat
  5. C. Chan, Demise of “One Country, Two Systems”?, Verfassungsblog
  6. M. Gordon, Privacy International, Parliamentary Sovereignty and the Synthetic Constitution, UK Constitutional Law Association
  7. S. Aydin-Düzgit, T.G. Daly, K. Godfrey, S.I. Lindberg, A. Lührmann, T. Petrova and R. Youngs, Post-Cold War Democratic Declines: The third Wave of Autocratization, Carnegie Europe
  8. M. Rodriguez Ferrere, A. Geddis, The New Zealand Court of Appeal on Extradition to the PRC, UK Constitutional Law Association
  9. C. Murdoch, W. Jordash, Clarifying the Contours of the Crime of Starvation, EJIL: Talk!
  10. R. Thwaites, “Disallegient conduct” and citizenship stripping: Recent Australian developments, Blog of the IACL, AIDC
  11. R. Ziegler, Absent-Present Membership? EU Citizens in Brexit Britain, Blog of the IACL, AIDC

Print Friendly
Published on July 1, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Developments
 

Symposium – The Brazilian Supreme Court and the Protection of Democracy in the Age of Populism: The Supreme Court and the Bolsonaro Government: A Fragmented Court in a Conflictive Political Scenario

[Editor’s Note: I-CONnect is pleased to feature a four-part symposium on the role of the Brazilian Supreme Court and the protection of democracy in the age of populism. This is the final entry of the symposium, which was kindly organized by Professors Conrado Hübner Mendes and Juliano Zaiden Benvindo. Their introduction is available here.]

Diego Werneck Arguelhes, Insper Institute for Education and Research.

Brazilian politics has taken a turn to the far right. The 2018 elections brought to office President Jair Bolsonaro, who, in less than one year, had gone from being a fringe congressman to almost winning the elections in the first round. Bolsonado adopted an anti-establishment and social conservative discourse that marked a shift in the center of gravity in Brazilian politics.  Although the Worker’s Party (PT) is still the largest party in Congress, the current legislature is arguably the most right leaning the country had since 1988, when a new constitution was enacted as part of the transition to democracy.

Taking initial steps towards his campaign promises, Bolsonaro has introduced measures to make it easier to own and carry a gun and to dismantle the existing structure of civil society councils within the executive branch. Both measures were adopted by executive decrees, and not by the usual legislative process, and, unsurprisingly, both were immediately challenged before the Supreme Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal, “STF”). The decree extinguishing civil society councils was ruled partially unconstitutional by the STF on formal grounds, and, while Bolsonaro has somewhat backtracked regarding the gun possession decree, it is still possible that the court will rule on the matter in the near future.

In the last few months, the STF has been making important advances in protecting some minorities and vulnerable groups. It has issued important rulings on transgender persons’ rights, and a majority of Justices ruled that the Constitution requires the criminalization of homophobia – a bold display of activism that has been criticized as “completely wrong”  by Bolsonaro himself.

In terms of design, the STF is both powerful and independent, and Brazilian politics has become so judicialized that any controversial political issues are bound to trigger constitutional review. Do these episodes suggest that the STF – currently composed of judges entirely appointed by governments to the left of Bolsonaro – will use these powers to act as a check on the government in the near future?

In this post, I will briefly discuss three points that, taken together, caution against assuming that the STF will necessarily be able (or willing) to counter all potentially controversial measures of the Bolsonaro government.

Read the rest of this entry…
Print Friendly
Published on June 29, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Analysis
 

Symposium – The Brazilian Supreme Court and the Protection of Democracy in the Age of Populism: The Empirical Turn in the Brazilian Supreme Court: Getting it Right

[Editor’s Note: I-CONnect is pleased to feature a four-part symposium on the role of the Brazilian Supreme Court and the protection of democracy in the age of populism. This is the third entry of the symposium, which was kindly organized by Professors Conrado Hübner Mendes and Juliano Zaiden Benvindo. Their introduction is available here.]

Debora Diniz, University of Brasilia

I would describe Brazil as an ongoing experiment in the effects of the post-truth wave on public institutions and spaces. If post-truth is a global phenomenon, with president Mr. Donald Trump as one of its leading voices, Latin America is a particularly fertile region for observing the effects of the phenomenon on politics due to the weakness of the region’s democratic institutions. The election of Mr. Jair Bolsonaro as the president of Brazil is one of the most recent milestones of the post-truth wave, which is characterized by the persecution of academics and science, the distrust of journalists, and the dissemination of fake news via social media channels. 

Mr. Bolsonaro has not changed the composition of the Brazilian Supreme Court, yet. During his tenure, it is expected that he will have the opportunity to nominate at least two new Justices to the Court, which could significantly shift the power balance on sensitive issues, particularly those involving the rights of minority groups. Recently, Mr. Bolsonaro announced his wish to have an “evangelical Justice” as a potential candidate, even though the current Minister of Justice, Sergio Moro, the former judge who sentenced former president Mr. Lula to jail, had been considered the top candidate. Bolsonaro’s comments provoked a strong reaction among the legal community about the meaning of a secular state.

Given the recent radical change in the political scenario, the Brazilian Supreme Court now has a particularly crucial role in protecting fundamental rights for women, LGBTQI, and racial minorities. However, to honor its mandate of protecting the Constitution, the Court has to strengthen its capacity to resist the post-truth mindset that dominates politics in Brazil. I would argue that there is a particular entry point that can facilitate such a role for the Court: the “empirical turn” of legal studies. The “empirical turn” has started at the legal schools with a demand for more rigor in the use of science in legal argumentation and is slowly migrating to the everyday legal work in Brazil. As a professor of methodology to Law students, I have been following a path in changing the legal mindset in country.

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

Symposium – The Brazilian Supreme Court and the Protection of Democracy in the Age of Populism: Under Pressure but Crucial: The Brazilian Supreme Court under Bolsonaro

[Editor’s Note: I-CONnect is pleased to feature a four-part symposium on the role of the Brazilian Supreme Court and the protection of democracy in the age of populism. This is the second entry of the symposium, which was kindly organized by Professors Conrado Hübner Mendes and Juliano Zaiden Benvindo. Their introduction is available here.]

Luciana Gross Cunha, Getúlio Vargas Foundation – São Paulo (FGV-SP), and Marta R. de Assis Machado, Getúlio Vargas Foundation – São Paulo (FGV-SP)

The Brazilian Supreme Court is characterized by high autonomy and broad authority[1], which renders it a central policy player. The Brazilian Constitution, similar to that of other Latin American countries, has a long list of economic and social rights, combined with broad access to justice opened to individual and collective actors.[2] As a result, Brazilian courts, and especially the Brazilian Supreme Court, have a crucial role in redistributive politics, besides its more ordinary tasks.

It is possible to say that the Brazilian Supreme Court has gradually been occupying an expansive role in national politics since the early 1990’s, when it decided, for example, to declare the unconstitutionality of a constitutional amendment approved by Congress (ADI 926-5). In the following years, it built an impressive record in adjudicating important political issues and pushed the term “judicial activism” to become a cliché of academic and political analysis. For example, it recognized homosexual civil unions (ADI 4277 e ADPF 132/2011), allowed stem cell research (ADI 3510/2008), broadened the circumstances for legal abortion (ADPF 54) and defined the rules of electoral campaign financing (ADI 4650/2015). It is not a coincidence that the power of the Brazilian Supreme Court has been named as “supremocracy.”[3]

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

Symposium — Introduction: The Brazilian Supreme Court and the Protection of Democracy in the Age of Populism

[Editor’s Note: I-CONnect is pleased to feature a four-part symposium on the role of the Brazilian Supreme Court and the protection of democracy in the age of populism. The symposium was kindly organized by Professors Conrado Hübner Mendes and Juliano Zaiden Benvindo, who have written today’s introduction to the symposium.]

Conrado Hübner Mendes, University of São Paulo (USP) and Juliano Zaiden Benvindo, University of Brasilia (UnB)

Studies on the crisis of constitutional democracy and the populist threat have mushroomed in the last decade.[1] Such crises are detected through a set of markers, such as the denial of the dignity and legitimacy of political opponents, weak commitment to the rule of law, attacks on civil liberties, the erosion of basic democratic norms, etc.[2] No matter which standard of crisis one embraces, it is hard do deny that Brazilian democracy is now facing its most severe challenge of the last 30 years.

This is not an easy story to reconstruct. In the course of the last five years, the specter of polarized and anti-establishment politics has gradually engulfed the Brazilian public sphere and institutional life. This story comprises the arousal of an almost unprecedented wave of street protests that cut across the political spectrum from June 2013 onwards, the arguably biggest anti-corruption judicial operation in the history of Western democracies (the ongoing CarWash Operation, kicked off in 2014), a highly contested impeachment process against an elected president (Dilma Roussef, who was ousted from office in 2016), and a vicious electoral cycle in 2018, which ended in the election of Jair Bolsonaro. The accumulated body of knowledge of political science, until the very last minute, did not see it coming. And all this coincided with the 30th anniversary of the Brazilian 1988 Constitution, the most ambitious democratizing document in the country’s history and the shared platform for significant social change over these decades.

Read the rest of this entry…
Print Friendly
Published on June 26, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Analysis
 

What’s New in Public Law

Simon Drugda, PhD Candidate at the University of Copenhagen

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 Caribbean Court of Justice found that the appointment of Justice James Patterson as the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission almost two years ago was unconstitutional.
  2. The Caribbean Court of Justice confirmed the validity of a no-confidence motion against the ruling party in Guyana.
  3. The European Court of Justice found that a German law instituting a highway toll violated European Union law because the law discriminated based on nationality.
  4. The Constitutional Court of Ukraine ruled that President Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s move to dissolve the Parliament was constitutional.
  5. The Constitutional Court of Ecuador ruled against a request to require community consultations for a planned mining project.
  6. The US Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision in favour of a ban on uranium mining in Virginia.
  7. The US Supreme Court ruled against the Virginia House of Delegates in a racial gerrymandering case.
  8. The US Supreme Court ruled that a public access television provider is not a state actor.
  9. The US Supreme Court ruled that a Mississippi prosecutor unconstitutionally excluded black jurors from a murder trial.
  10. The US Supreme Court upheld the federal government’s authority under a 2006 law to require thousands of sex offenders to register with authorities in the states where they live.
  11. The Constitutional Court of Russia ruled that local authorities may not ban public events by simply citing lack of security plan from organizers.

In the News

  1. Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the EU, Evgeni Tanchev advised the Court to rule that the new retirement rules for Polish judges are contrary to EU law.
  2. The Union Parliament’s Charter Amendment Committee of Myanmar completed reviewing the entire Constitution for possible amendments and will send a report to the Parliament.
  3. The New York state legislature passed a bill prohibiting citizens of the state from refusing vaccinations on religious grounds.
  4. Indian Prime Minister proposed constitutional amendments to hold simultaneous elections to Lok Sabha and state assemblies.
  5. The President of Mexico proposed holding a recall referendum on his presidency on March 21, 2021, at the latest.
  6. Pakistan will establish a system of 1,016 special courts dedicated to addressing gender-based violence.
  7. The Court of Appeals of the United Kingdom found that the government in 2016 illegally sold arms to Saudi Arabia.
  8. The date for a referendum on whether or not to extend the vote in presidential elections to Irish citizens living abroad was set for October.
  9. The Supreme Court of Colorado found that an initiative to repeal the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (“TABOR”) is a single subject that can be voted on in one referendum.

New Scholarship

  1. Tom Ginsburg, Mark D Rosen, and Georg Vanberg (eds), Constitutions in Times of Financial Crisis (2019) (assessing the ability of constitutional orders all over the world to cope with financial crises, and the demands for emergency powers that typically accompany them)
  2. Bui Ngoc Son, Economic Constitution of the Developing World, Law and Development Review (introducing a direct concept of the economic constitution with reference to developing countries)
  3. Bruce Ackerman, Revolutionary Constitutions: Charismatic Leadership and the Rule of Law (2019) (offering insights into the origins, successes, and threats to revolutionary constitutionalism in case studies of India, South Africa, Italy, France, Poland, Burma, Israel, Iran, and the US)
  4. Sanford Levinson and Jack M Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (2019) (uncovering the underlying causes of the current crisis of American political life and their meaning for democracy)
  5. Neliana Rodean, ‘We, the People’ Entitlement Within Constitutional Change (2019) (examining the “we the people” claims in constitutional change)
  6. Ling Li, Political-Legal Order and the Curious Double Character of China’s Courts, 6 Asian Journal of Law and Society (2019) (providing an analytical account of how politics and law in China are organically integrated into the institutional architecture of courts as designed by the Chinese Communist Party)
  7. Simon Butt, Judicial Reasoning and Review in the Indonesian Supreme Court, 6 Asian Journal of Law and Society (2019) (describing and criticizing the judicial reasoning of Indonesia’s Supreme Court, through the lens of the Court’s reviews of subnational laws during 2011–17)
  8. Cedric Jenart and Mathieu Leloup, Separation of Powers and Alternative Dispute Resolution before the European Court of Human Rights, European Constitutional Law Review (2019) (examining how alternative dispute resolution procedures before the ECtHR impact the separation of powers principle in the contracting states of the Council of Europe)
  9. Alec Stone Sweet and Jud Mathews, Proportionality Balancing and Constitutional Governance A Comparative and Global Approach (2019) (examining the law and politics of rights protection in democracies, and in human rights regimes in Europe, the Americas, and Africa)
  10. Philip Alston and Nikki Reisch (eds), Tax, Inequality, and Human Rights (2019) (showing how structural biases in the tax regime impact human rights)
  11. Arghya Sengupta, Independence and Accountability of the Higher Indian Judiciary (2019) (examining who the judges of the Supreme Court of India are, how they are appointed, transferred and removed, and what they do after retirement)
  12. Vito Breda (ed), Legal Transplants in East Asia and Oceania (2019) (providing an overview of methodologies that are conducive to a successful legal transplant in East Asia and Oceania)
  13. Abdurrachman Satrio, A Battle Between Two Populists: The 2019 Presidential Election and the Resurgence of Indonesia’s Authoritarian Constitutional Tradition, 19 Australian Journal of Asian Law (2019) (examining the emergence of two major populist candidates with authoritarian tendencies in presidential elections in a country once hailed as the most stable democracy in Southeast Asia)

Call for Papers and Announcements

  1. The University of Perugia invites panels and paper proposals for the 2019 Critical Legal Conference that will take place on September 12-14, 2019. The deadline for submission of abstracts is July 15, 2019.
  2. The Gujarat National Law University Law and Society Review (GLSR) invites submissions for its second volume in 2019. The deadline for submissions is August 4, 2019.
  3. RECONNECT organizes a webinar on “Poland’s Constitutional Breakdown,” a new book by Wojciech Sadurski, to be held on June 25, 2019. You can register for the webinar at this link.
  4. Yale Law School invites submissions from PhD candidates and recent graduates from doctoral programs for its Ninth Annual Doctoral Scholarship Conference to be held on November 8-9, 2019. The workshop has four thematic workshops: 1) International Law; 2) Law and Philosophy; 3) Network Theory, Law and Policy; and 4) Public Law and Institutional Design: Assemblies, Executives, Courts, Agencies. The deadline for submissions of abstracts is July 8, 2019.
  5. The Law Faculty at Lund University invites applications for the position of a professor in international law and human rights. The deadline for applications is September 12, 2019.
  6. The International Journal of Law in Context and the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies (CSLS) at the University of Oxford jointly invite early career scholars to participate in a workshop to be held in Oxford, on September 17-18, 2019. The purpose of this international to support junior researchers in developing research projects and preparing their publications for submission to scholarly journals in the field of socio-legal studies. The deadline for applications is 10 July 2019.
  7. The Centre for Advanced Studies in Biomedical Innovation Law (CeBIL), at the Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen invites applications for two doctoral candidates. The closing date for applications is July 15, 2019.

Elsewhere Online

  1. Martin Husovec, Why There Is No Due Process Online?, Balkinization
  2. Ann Southworth, The Power of Constitutional Frames, Balkinization
  3. Noah Feldman, Congress’s Weakness on Tariffs Is Its Own Fault, Bloomberg Opinion
  4. David R Cameron, Tory MPs narrow choice of new party leader to Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt, Yale MacMillan Center
  5. Shubhangi Agarwalla, Decisional Autonomy as Central to Privacy: Reproductive Rights in India, IACL-AIDC Blog
  6. Arushi Gupta, Notes from a Foreign Field – Carpenter v USA and Rethinking the Third-Party Doctrine in the Digital Age, Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy
  7. Wessel Reijers, How to Make the Perfect Citizen?, Verfassungsblog
  8. Albert Chen, A Commentary on the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019, HKU Legal Scholarship Blog
  9. Pierre de Vos, A brilliant court victory for LGBT people in Botswana lays the ground for further legal activism, Constitutionally Speaking
  10. Tony Wright, Joni Lovenduski, Andrew Gamble and Albert Weale, Rethinking democracy: is our democracy fit for purpose?, The Constitution Unit
Print Friendly
Published on June 24, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Developments
 

Save the Date–2019 I-CONnect Happy Hour at ICON-S in Santiago–Sunday, June 30, 6:30pm to 8:30pm at Quitral

Richard Albert (Texas), Tom Ginsburg (Chicago), and David Landau (Florida State) invite friends of I-CONnect to our happy hour at the ICON-S 2019 Annual Conference in Santiago.

All are welcome on Sunday, June 30, from 6:30pm to 8:30pm at Quitral, located within walking distance from the conference venue at this address: Jose Victorino Lastarria 70 – Local 4 – Paseo Lastarria.

Attendees will benefit from a discount of 15 percent off all food and beverages, thanks to the kind help of our colleague Sergio Verdugo (Universidad del Desarrollo).

The I-CONnect editors look forward to seeing you there!



Print Friendly
Published on June 21, 2019
Author:          Filed under: Developments
 

The Game of Thrones, Courts, and the Democratic Process in Indonesia

Dian A H Shah, National University Singapore Faculty of Law

[Editor’s note: This is one of our biweekly I-CONnect columns. Columns, while scholarly in accordance with the tone of the blog and about the same length as a normal blog post, are a bit more “op-ed” in nature than standard posts. For more information about our four columnists for 2019, see here.]

All eyes are on Indonesia again as the Constitutional Court began hearing Prabowo Subianto and Sandiaga Uno’s appeal against the presidential election results released (officially) on 21 May 2019. The Prabowo-Sandi pair was defeated by the incumbent, Joko Widodo (Jokowi), and his running mate, Ma’ruf Amin, who emerged as winners of the hard-fought election with 55.50% of votes cast. This more or less confirms the ‘quick count’ results released by several survey organizations soon after polling ended on 17 April.[1]

However, the Prabowo camp had always disputed these results from the moment they trickled in, arguing that exit poll data from 5000 polling stations and quick count results showed that Prabowo had won the elections with 55.4% and 52.2% of the votes, respectively. Based on these information – both compiled by his campaign team – Prabowo declared himself to be the winner of the elections and the ‘president of all Indonesians’,[2] just hours after the polls closed and despite warnings from the Elections Commission that candidates should refrain from claiming victory until the Commission releases the official results in May. To demonstrate his readiness to go to ‘war’ over the election outcomes, Prabowo immediately alleged that certain survey organizations were attempting to steer public opinion against his success,[3] and within days after the elections, his campaign team began releasing reports of electoral fraud.

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