Constitutions divide into those that provide for a constitutionally protected set of rights, where courts can strike down legislation, and those where rights are protected predominantly by parliament, where courts can interpret legislation to protect rights, but cannot strike down legislation. The UK's Human Rights Act 1998 is regarded as an example of a commonwealth model of rights protections. It is justified as a new form of protection of rights which promotes dialogue between the legislature and the courts - dialogue being seen not just as a better means of protecting rights, but as a new form of constitutionalism occupying a middle ground between legal and political constitutionalism. This book argues that there is no clear middle ground for dialogue to occupy, with most theories of legal and political constitutionalism combining legal and political protections, as well as providing an account of interactions between the legislature and the judiciary. Nevertheless, dialogue has a role to play. It differs from legal and political constitutionalism in terms of the assumptions on which it is based and the questions it asks. It focuses on analysing mechanisms of inter-institutional interactions, and assessing when these interactions can provide a better protection of rights, facilitate deliberation, engage citizens and act as an effective check and balance between institutions of the constitution. This book evaluates dialogue in the UK constitution, assessing the protection of human rights through the Human Rights Act 1998, the common law and EU law. It also evaluates court-court dialogue between the UK court and the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. The conclusion evaluates the implications of the proposed British Bill of Rights and the referendum decision to leave the European Union.
In Libraries, Classrooms, and the Interests of Democracy, Dr. Buschman details the connections between our educative institutions and democracy, and the resources within democratic theory reflecting on the tensions between marketing, advertising, consumption, and democracy.
In June 2003, the Convention on the Future of Europe released what may become the Constitution of the European Union. This timely volume provides one of the first critical assessments of the draft Constitution from the vantage point of political theory. The work combines detailed institutional analysis with normative political theory, bringing theoretical analysis to bear on the pressing issues of institutional design answered - or bypassed - by the draft Constitution. It addresses several themes that play out differently in federal arrangements than in unitary political orders: * European values, especially the legitimate role of alleged common values * liberty and powers - how does the draft Constitution address competing normative preferences? * the European interest: the noble words regarding common European objectives and values are often muddled or conflated, different actors intending quite different things. Several chapters contribute to clarifying the different senses of these terms.
Constitutional law is clearly shaped by judicial actors. But who else contributes? Scholars in the past have recognized that the legislative branch plays a significant role in determining structural issues, such as separation of powers and federalism, but stopped there--claiming that only courts had the independence and expertise to safeguard individual and minority rights. In this readable and engaging narrative, the authors identify the nuts and bolts of the national dialogue and relate succinct examples of how elected officials and the general public often dominate the Supreme Court in defining the Constitution's meaning. Making use of case studies on race, privacy, federalism, war powers, speech, and religion, Devins and Fisher demonstrate how elected officials uphold individual rights in such areas as religious liberty and free speech as well as, and often better than, the courts. This fascinating debunking of judicial supremacy argues that nonjudicial contributions to constitutional interpretation make the Constitution more stable, more consistent with constitutional principles, and more protective of individual and minority rights.
The Four Freedoms vs National Administrative Discretion
Author: Christoffer C. Eriksen
This book explores how the right to the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital in the European Union legal order affects welfare states. These "four freedoms", as they are known, are vital instruments for the protection of a European market unencumbered by internal frontiers. The European Constitution, Welfare States and Democracy explore the relationships and conflicts that have emerged between the European constitution and the legal regulation of mixed economies and markets within welfare-states. In particular, it examines the threat posed to the discretionary powers enjoyed by national governments and administrative authorities. Christoffer C. Eriksen has undertaken a comprehensive analysis of a series of judgments in which the European Court of Justice has clearly indicated the ways in which the four freedoms may be incompatible with the current practice of entrusting national administrative authorities with discretionary powers and thus highlights how the four freedoms are provoking democratic dilemmas, previously neglected in the academic literature. The book is written in a style which communicates beyond an audience of specialized legal scholars and although it includes analysis of black letter law, its methodology also draws from the disciplines of philosophy, political science, and sociology.
This book argues that the secret to the political miracle achieved in South Africa is a comprehensive change in the conception of justice as guiding political institutions. Pursuing justice is a moral imperative that has practical value as a cost-efficient way of dealing with conflict. This case study in applied ethics and social theory patiently explains how justice in the new South Africa restores humanity and establishes lasting peace, whereas injustice in apartheid South Africa led to conflict and dehumanization.
This book includes papers presented at the first conference entitled “Network of Reform and Democratic Change in the Arab World” which was jointly organized by Al Quds Center for Political Studies and the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Amman, 8-10 December 2006. Papers were presented by intellectuals and politicians who reside on various locations of the reform spectrum. They addressed a wide range of reform concepts, its priorities and mechanism. The papers also tackle the reform experience and official, civil, Arab, and international initiatives. They also identify the role of “political Islam” in this process
"The book - as the outcome of a research performed by the University of Florence and the United States Institute of Peace of Washington - explores the role of law in the process of democratic transition in South Africa. More specifically it emphasize how constitutional law may contribute to "civilize" apparently reconcilable conflicts, a part from laying down the foundations of the new legal order and institutions. The book - as the outcome of a research performed by the University of Florence and the United States Institute of Peace of Washington - explores the role of law in the process of democratic transition in South Africa. More specifically it emphasize how constitutional law may contribute to "civilize" apparently reconcilable conflicts, a part from laying down the foundations of the new legal order and institutions"--Publisher's description.