—Mara Malagodi, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Faculty of Law; Rehan Abeyratne, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Faculty of Law; and Ngoc Son Bui, The University of Oxford [Editors’ Note: This is one of our biweekly ICONnect columns. For more information on our four columnists for 2021, please see here.] Judicial interventions in
Symposium on Chilean Referendum Part II: Chile: The Constituent Dilemma
[Editor’s Note: I-CONnect is pleased to feature a five-part symposium on the recent Chilean referendum authorizing a new constitution-making process. The symposium was organized by Professors José Francisco García and Sergio Verdugo, whose introduction is available here.] —Juan Luis Ossa, Centro de Estudios Públicos In the early morning of November 15, 2019, most of Chile’s representatives
“Constituent Power” and Referendums in Quebec: Instrumentalizing Sieyès?
—Maxime St-Hilaire, Université de Sherbrooke In Quebec nationalist constitutional thinking, the holding of a referendum is sometimes explicitly connected with the (somewhat fashionably) internationally revived idea of “pouvoir constituant”. Beyond proposals for referendums on secession or on the ratification of the constitution of an independent Quebec, there are now calls for holding a referendum on
The Venezuelan Presidential Crisis: A Response
—Rafael Macía Briedis, Center for Constitutional Democracy, Indiana University Maurer School of Law In a recent I-CONnect blog post, Rolando Seijas-Bolinaga makes the case for the recognition of Juan Guaidó as the sole legitimate President of Venezuela. Although I certainly agree with his conclusions as to the urgency of replacing Nicolás Maduro at the head
The Trouble with Constituent Power in Latin America: A Reply to Joshua Braver
—David Landau, Florida State University College of Law I would like to thank Joshua Braver for his post yesterday here at I-CONnect engaging my 2012 piece on constitution-making, and am gratified that the work is still relevant and useful for ongoing debates in Latin America and globally. Braver’s own project – to reconceptualize constituent power
Putting “Abusive Constitutionalism” and Populism in Perspective
–Joshua Braver, Tufts University The fear of “abusive constitutionalism” has set the agenda for scholarship on popular constitution-making. It warns of the danger that “constitutional amendment and replacement can be used by would-be autocrats to undermine democracy with relative ease.”[1] The term’s author, David Landau, and fellow traveler William Partlett, are particularly wary of the
The Oldest-Newest Separation of Powers
—Yaniv Roznai, Senior Lecturer, Radzyner Law School, Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya. Separation of powers is a basic idea within constitutional theory. The principle of separation of powers, as famously described by Montesquieu in his The Spirit of the Laws, centered around three governmental branches: legislative power, executive power and judging power; a separation that was needed
The Chilean Presidential Election and the Constituent Process
–Alberto Coddou Mc Manus, Observatory of the Chilean Constituent Process Next Sunday, November 19, Chile will celebrate one of the most important presidential elections since the return to democracy in 1990s. According to different opinion polls, Sebastian Piñera, a right-wing millionaire, will most likely receive the highest number of votes in the first round, and
Constitutional Amendments in an Age of Populism (I-CONnect Column)
—Aslı Bâli, UCLA School 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
I•CON Debate Review by Nicolás Figueroa: Constituent Power and Constitutional Revolution
[Editor’s Note: In this special installment of I•CONnect’s Review Series, Nicolás Figueroa offers a critical review of the I•CON debate between Mark Tushnet and Jan Komárek on constituent power and constitutional revolution. The debate appears in the current issue of I•CON, beginning with Tushnet’s paper here, followed by a reply by Komárek here, and concluding with a rejoinder from Tushnet here.] Review by
