Blog of the International Journal of Constitutional Law

Tag: judicial independence

  • President Macri and Judicial Independence on the Argentine Supreme Court

    —Andrés del Río, Federal Fluminense University (UFF), Brazil During the presidential election campaign of 2015, Mauricio Macri, leader of the then-opposition Republican Proposal Party (PRO), included in his platform his commitment to “strengthen the rule of law, strictly respecting the division of powers, the independence of justice and the constitutional principles and guarantees, together with full freedom of expression.”

  • Judicial Supremacy, not Independence, Upheld in NJAC Judgment

    —Rehan Abeyratne, Jindal Global Law School Last week, the Supreme Court of India issued a landmark judgment holding the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) unconstitutional. As Chintan Chandrachud has explained in detail on I-CONnect, the Court held that the NJAC violated the Indian Constitution’s “basic structure” by restricting the independence of the judiciary.

  • Collaboration, Not Confrontation: The Indian Supreme Court on Judicial Appointments

    —Chintan Chandrachud, PhD Candidate at the University of Cambridge and LLM Candidate at Yale Law School Today, a five-judge bench of the Indian Supreme Court decided amongst the most significant constitutional cases in its recent history – one that had prompted a moratorium on judicial appointments to the Supreme Court and the twenty-four High Courts.

  • How Far Out of Step is the Supreme Court of the United States?

    —Brian Christopher Jones, Liverpool Hope University The short answer to the question posed in the title of this piece is: very. This post focuses on three things, some of which Erwin Chemerinsky covered in his recently published monograph, The Case Against the Supreme Court, and also that I focused on in my book review of that text for the Journal of Law and Society.

  • A Brewing Supreme Court Nomination Crisis in Brazil?

    –Vanice Regina Lírio do Valle, Estácio de Sá University This past February 26th, the Brazilian Supreme Court was unable to rule in a relevant lawsuit: the votes were tied, which made the absence of the eleventh Justice an insuperable obstacle to come to a decision.

  • Editor’s Choice: Mark Tushnet

    —Mark Tushnet, Harvard Law School [ICON Editors’ Choices for New Year Readings and Gifts: ICON’s Book Review Editor, Isabel Feichtner, invited our Board members to reflect on the books that have had a significant impact on them this year. In the following weeks they will present their selections here on I*Connect.

  • Constitutionally Eroding the Rule of Law

    —William Partlett, Columbia Law School Recent work by Kim Lane Scheppele, Sam Issacharoff, David Landau, and myself has focused on the ways in which constitutional change can be used to render regimes less democratic. In Russia today, we are seeing constitutional change eroding another key liberal value: the rule of law.

  • Egypt: What’s Next?

    —Mohamed Abdelaal, Assistant Professor of Constitutional and Administrative Law, Alexandria University, School of Law Was the overthrow of President Mohamed Morsi on June 30 a popular revolution or a military coup? The debate is outdated. What is more important is that the events of June 30 returned Egypt to square one, right back where it started from in January 2011, when President Hosni Mubarak was forced to step down under the pressure of massive popular demonstrations.

  • Just Deserts or Honor at Stake? India’s Pending Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill

    –Nilesh Sinha In recent history, India’s constitutional adjudication has been amongst the most active in the world. Following its shameful capitulation before Indira Gandhi during the Indian emergency, the Supreme Court of India developed the tool of Public Interest Litigation (whereby a court can deliver prompt social justice, at times by taking up a matter suo motu) and has come to be noted for its interventionist and creative style of functioning.[i]

  • The Brazilian Supreme Court: Between Activism and Judicial Responsibility

    –Claudia Maria Barbosa, Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná, Brazil On December 17, 2012 the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court, (Supremo Tribunal Federal, STF), concluded the hearings of Criminal Case no. 470/2007, known as Mensalão (“Big Monthly”) – a criminal scheme to buy political support in Congress involving 37 accused, among them ministers from former President Lula’s government, legislators, law-makers, businessmen and bankers.

This site is registered on as a development site.