This work examines the promise of a new model against its performance in practice by comparing judicial review under the Human Rights Act (HRA) of the UK to an exemplar of the old model of judicial review, the Indian Constitution. It argues that although the HRA fosters a more balanced allocation of powers between legislatures and courts than the Indian Constitution, it does so for a novel reason
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Abstract In some countries, courts protect constitutional rights by ordering broad institutional reforms and overseeing those reforms. These broad orders are known as structural remedies, and they are currently part of the judicial practice of the United States, India, and Colombia. Structural remedies pose a problem of democratic legitimacy in that courts substitute for legislatures or administrators. This paper argues that structural remedies are democratically legitimate as long as they are used as a last resort and are aimed at addressing a specific institutional pathology within the legislature or the bureaucracy. Drawing from the experience of the United States, India, and Colombia, the paper distinguishes counter-legislative from counter-bureaucratic remedies in order to show that the democratic concerns raised may vary depending on the affected institution. The paper argues that structural remedies are legitimate if they are capable of correcting a pathology in the legislative or administrative process. With respect to legislatures, structural remedies should aim at improving the representative or the deliberative quality of legislative decisions. In the case of bureaucracies, they should aim at improving the subordination of agencies to the political process, their responsiveness to citizens' concerns, and the expertise with which their tasks are carried out.
This volume considers the use of impeachment within a global context. The book brings together leading scholars and experts to give an insight into significant periods in the development of impeachment and its modern comparative use. Divided into five parts, the opening chapter introduces the topic and underlines its significance in terms of understanding the relationship and inter-dependence among politics, governance and the law. It also offers a novel conceptual framework that facilitates the global mapping of impeachment processes. Part I presents a thematic approach that explores the topic of impeachment through the lenses of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. With these themes in mind, Part II focuses on those parts of the world where impeachment is generally recognised as a core constitutional process including the United States, South Korea, Brazil and other countries in South America. Part III continues with the process of constitutional mapping by moving to a focus on those countries where impeachment is arguably an important but largely secondary or peripheral process. This includes chapters on Denmark, Iceland, Sri Lanka and the Philippines and flows through into Part IV's focus on areas of the world where impeachment matters and may even be increasing in terms of visibility but, for a number of reasons, arguably exists within a satellite status in terms of constitutional processes and safeguards. The fifth and final section steps back in an attempt to assess impeachment processes from a broad comparative perspective. The collection presents the definitive text on impeachment for students and scholars with an interest in comparative public law, politics and constitutional studies
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
This volume considers the use of impeachment within a global context. The book brings together leading scholars and experts to give an insight into significant periods in the development of impeachment and its modern comparative use. Divided into five parts, the opening chapter introduces the topic and underlines its significance in terms of understanding the relationship and inter-dependence among politics, governance and the law. It also offers a novel conceptual framework that facilitates the global mapping of impeachment processes. Part I presents a thematic approach that explores the topic of impeachment through the lenses of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. With these themes in mind, Part II focuses on those parts of the world where impeachment is generally recognised as a core constitutional process including the United States, South Korea, Brazil and other countries in South America. Part III continues with the process of constitutional mapping by moving to a focus on those countries where impeachment is arguably an important but largely secondary or peripheral process. This includes chapters on Denmark, Iceland, Sri Lanka and the Philippines and flows through into Part IV's focus on areas of the world where impeachment matters and may even be increasing in terms of visibility but, for a number of reasons, arguably exists within a satellite status in terms of constitutional processes and safeguards. The fifth and final section steps back in an attempt to assess impeachment processes from a broad comparative perspective. The collection presents the definitive text on impeachment for students and scholars with an interest in comparative public law, politics and constitutional studies.
Studies constitutional law in context of the balance between judicial and political power in Canada today; 8 articles. Summaries in English. The rule of law and interests it promotes as issues in postponement of the question of secession by Quebec Province, the Court Challenge Program and role of the Executive in transformation of power, how the Supreme Court of Canada attempted to harmonize 1982 constitutional reforms with its basic principles, legitimacy of judicial review and the role of a constitutional judge, why payment of indemnities by a government for injustices perpetrated by previous governments are addressed mainly by political actors, and the close link between law and politics in the debate over self-government by Canada's native races.
In "The Normalization of Foreign Relations Law," Professors Ganesh Sitaraman and Ingrid Wuerth argue that the Supreme Court increasingly treats foreign relations law like other bodies of law—it has "normalized" this body of once-exceptional law. However, a subset of foreign relations law, immigration law, receives little attention in their account, which obscures the fact that immigration law, unlike the rest of foreign relations law, has not normalized in nearly the same fashion. To understand the normalization of immigration law, this paper proposes a theory of rights normalization: the Court has been reluctant to normalize immigration law except where immigrants' rights are most at issue. Unlike foreign relation law normalization, immigration normalization has been halting and uneven in the contexts of justiciability, federalism and executive dominance. Yet, in questions affecting immigrants' constitutional or international human rights, the Supreme Court has been more willing to normalize immigration law. Naturally, all immigration cases affect the rights of immigrants in some manner, but the Supreme Court shows an increased willingness to identify and employ rights claims as the basis for rejecting exceptionalist arguments. In this way, the Supreme Court implements rights normalization.
