Suchergebnisse

The constitutional complaint is one of the important constitutional court jurisdictions that can be described as a complaint or lawsuit filed by any person who deems his or her rights has been violating by act or omission of public authority. Currently, the constitutional court in many countries have adopted a constitutional complaint system in a variety of models. However, the first application of the constitutional complaint jurisdiction came from Europe. In Austria, the constitutional complaint is allowed against the administrative actions but not against the court decisions. While Germany and Spain have a similar model that is a complaint against an act of the public authority including court decisions. In Asia, it is imperative that the court in Asia actively participate in the Association of Asian Constitutional Courts and Equivalent Institutions (AACC). The AACC members have adopted a system of constitutional adjudication in a variety of models, and when it comes to jurisdictions, out of sixteen AACC members, there are four countries (Azerbaijan, South Korea, Thailand, and Turkey) have the constitutional complaint in their jurisdictions. In Azerbaijan, constitutional complaint is comparatively broad. Azerbaijan's Constitutional Court can handle constitutional complaint against the normative legal act of the legislative and executive, an act of a municipality and the decisions of courts. In contrast, even though constitutional complaint in South Korea and Thailand can be against the exercise and non-exercise of state power, constitutional complaint cannot be filed against court decisions. In Turkey, the constitutional complaint mechanism is coupled with the regional system of human rights protection. The Turkish Constitutional Court handles complaints from individuals concerning violations of human rights and freedoms falling under the joint protection of the Turkish Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This paper argues that constitutional complaint represents the main part of the constitutional court, and through a comparative perspective among three countries in Europe and four AACC members are expected to provide lessons for the other AACC members that do not have a constitutional complaint mechanism, such as Indonesia.

"Chile's constitutional moment began as a popular demand in late 2019. This collection seizes the opportunity of this unique moment to unpack the context, difficulties, opportunities, and merits to enhance the status of environmental and social rights (health, housing, education and social security) in a country's constitution. Learning from Chilean and international experiences from the Global South and North, and drawing on the analysis of both academics and practitioners, the book provides rigorous answers to the fundamental questions raised by the construction of a new constitutional bill of rights that embraces climate and social justice. With an international and comparative perspective, chapters look at issues such as political economy, the judicial enforceability of social rights, implications of the privatisation of public services, and the importance of active participation of most vulnerable groups in a constitutional drafting process. Ahead of the referendum on a new constitution for Chile in the second half of 2022, this collection is timely and relevant and will have direct impact on how best to legislate effectively for social rights in Chile and beyond."--

Introduction : bridges under construction and shifting boundaries / Helmut Elmut and Thomas Klein -- Foreign relations law as a bargaining tool? / Felix Lange -- International foreign relations law : executive authority in entering and exiting treaties / Edward T. Swaine -- Comparative foreign relations law between centre and periphery. Liberal and postcolonial perspectives / Michael Riegner -- Finding foreign relations law in India / Prabhakar Singh -- Foreign legal policy as the background to foreign relations law? : revisiting Guy de Lacharrière's La politique juridique extérieure / Frédéric Mégret -- Judicial review, foreign relations and global administrative law. The administrative function of courts in foreign relations / Angelo Jr. Golia -- The conseil constitutionnel's jurisprudence on 'limitations of sovereignty / Niki Aloupi -- Democratic participation in international law - making in Switzerland after the 'age of treaties' / Anna Petrig -- A constitution made for Mandela, a constitutional jurisprudence developed for Zuma. The erosion of discretion of the executive in foreign relations / Dire Tladi -- From scope to process : the evolution of checks on presidential power in U.S. foreign relations law / Jean Galbraith -- Division of competences in the field of foreign relations in the Polish constitutional system / Stanisław Biernat -- The role of parliaments in creating and enforcing foreign relations law : a case study of Bosnia and Herzegovina / Ajla Škrbić -- War, international law and the rise of parliament. The influence of international law on UK parliamentary practice with respect to the use of force / Veronika Fikfak -- China and global environmental governance : coordination, distribution and compliance / Ji Hua -- Final reflections : the dynamic and sometimes uneasy relationship between foreign relations law and international law / Curtis A. Bradley -- The present salience of foreign relations law / Campbell Mclachlan.

A grand alliance is forming, and new trenches are being dug on the old and hallowed battleground of the Constitution. Waving the stars and stripes of "constitutional design," and richly equipping themselves with the weaponry of reason, scholars like Richard Fallon, Sanford Levinson, and Jack Balkin have taken the field to determine "what provisions for judicial review (if any) ought to exist in constitutions for all societies whose people and legislatures are seriously committed to respecting rights," and to avoiding "constitutional crises" by "careful planning." Fallon, a self-proclaimed "system-designer," applauds himself for having "plowed rich ground." Levinson and Balkin claim to be revealing a "secret" that, if they are to be believed, has not only gone untold and unnoticed since the nation's Founding, but could have avoided the near apocalypse of our Civil War. Frederick Schauer's ambition—to breed a race of lawyers and judges equal to the ignominy of slavishly adhering to precedent—is no less breathtaking. Asserting that "following precedents even when they seem wrong to the decision maker is . . . a large part of law," he proposes to conduct empirical experiments to determine: (1)"whether those who self-select for legal training (or are selected for legal training)" are superior, before receiving that training, "at subjugating their preferences for the right answer to a norm of precedent"; (2)"whether those who are trained in the constraints of precedent (recent graduates of law school, for example) are better at following uncomfortable (to them) precedents than those who have yet to receive such training"; and (3)"whether those who self-select for judging, or who are selected to be judges, are better at following precedent than practicing lawyers of similar experience." Whether these scholars' wholesale embrace of intelligent design is the means to perfect constitutional systems commensurate with the universal call for freedom, or whether it desecrates the Founders' legacy of a constitutional frame ...

In September 2013 Russia enacted a new law on education which introduced significant changes into the system of sources for Russian educational law. This article analyses the provisions of the education law that pertain to sources of educational law in the Russian Federation, the relationship between different levels of normative and legal regulation, including: international, national (federal laws and by-laws, legal regulation of relations in education at the regional and municipal levels in the Russian Federation), and the place of local normative acts within the mechanism for legal regulation of relations in education.