Suchergebnisse

Abstract: For two reasons, at least, it is important to study the confrontation between international human rights law and national constitutional law based on Islamic Law/Shari'a. One reason is the inevitable interaction and confrontation between different legal regimes in the global legal pluralism. Another reason is the increasing religious tensions and the decreasing religious tolerance in the international community in the recent time . This often leads to a common perception that Islamic law is completely incompatible with international human rights law . I disagree with this view. My point is this perception, right or wrong, without considering the role of the state is very abstract .The aim of study is not to only shed light on the relationship between human rights and Islamic law, but to show how the understanding, interpretation and implementation of international human rights law and Islamic law can vary between different states. Religious, political and legal culture unique to each state have shaped and continue to shape the human rights-protection system and the implementation of Islamic law .Then, in fact, neither human rights law nor Islamic law is homogenous in practice. The governmental practices of both systems have been varied over time. There might be common grounds between international human rights and Shari'a-incorporated legal systems just as there might be essential conflicts between the source, scope, content and function of the two systems

Article 120 of the Constitution of the Netherlands prohibits the judicial review of laws and treaties against the Constitution. This strong emphasis placed on what is called 'legislative supremacy' is seen as one of the main characteristics of the Dutch constitutional tradition. But is it correct to define the relationship between the legislature and the judiciary in terms of the supremacy of the one over the other? After all, in order for the democratic rule of law to function properly, balance and dependency are of great importance. Several developments have led us to view constitutional law making as the joint responsibility of different national and international actors that are situated in a multipolar network of legal developments, in which relations among the actors are characterised by a certain measure of mutuality. The Council of State (Raad van State) of the Netherlands plays, seen from a Dutch point of view, an important role in this network. What is the exact role of the Dutch Council of State in this network of constitutional review and how and to what extent can the cooperation between the Council of State and the other national and international actors in this network be strengthened? These questions will be addressed in this contribution.

This essay deals with the implications of the judicial review related to Constitutional amendments, through the selection of some representative cases. It focuses on the case-law of the legal systems chosen where Constitutional or Supreme Courts asserted being enabled to verify the effectiveness of limits against possible misuses by political actors. Those Courts used different arguments to demonstrate that the control of amendments is an unavoidable consecuence of the Constitutional supremacy and all of them are analyzed in the text. ; Este estudio investiga el alcance del papel de la jurisdicción constitucional relativa a las reformas, mediante el análisis de algunos casos representativos. Se centra en las decisiones tomadas en los ordenamientos seleccionados, donde los Tribunales Constitucionales —o Supremos, en su caso— han reivindicado la función de supervisores de la efectividad de los límites, frente a posibles excesos de los actores políticos. Para demostrar que el control de las reformas es un corolario imprescindible de la supremacía constitucional, estos órganos jurisdiccionales han empleado los diferentes argumentos que se analizan en el texto.This essay deals with the implications of the judicial review related to Constitutional amendments, through the selection of some representative cases. It focuses on the case-law of the legal systems chosen where Constitutional or Supreme Courts asserted being enabled to verify the effectiveness of limits against possible misuses by political actors. Those Courts used different arguments to demonstrate that the control of amendments is an unavoidable consecuence of the Constitutional supremacy and all of them are analyzed in the text.

Introduction : the Senate and American democracy -- Creating something exceptional? : power and purpose in the design of the Senate -- Equal representation : the perpetual great compromise -- Equal representation's inexorable clash with political and racial equality -- The right of the living dead : staggered terms, continuing bodies, and constitutional myths senators tell themselves and America -- The filibuster : from southern citadel to the sixty-vote Senate -- "Cooling the coffee" : more myths senators tell themselves, and the filibuster's clash with effective government and the Constitution -- The supermajority Senate curtailed : nuclear options and mushroom clouds of hypocrisy -- Conclusion : constitutional repair and reparations.

Intro -- Contents -- Introduction -- Federation and Independence -- The Supremacy of Parliament and the Supremacy of the Constitution -- Magna Carta and Human Rights -- Parliamentary Structures and Composition -- Commonwealth Caribbean Presidencies -- The Challenges of Constitutional Reform -- Bibliography -- Index.

The role of the United States Supreme Court has been deeply controversial throughout American history. Should the Court undertake the task of guarding a wide variety of controversial and often unenumerated rights? Or should it confine itself to enforcing specific constitutional provisions, leaving other issues (even those of rights) to the democratic process?