Suchergebnisse

Robinson Woodward-Burns— The federal framers signed the Constitution in Philadelphia on September 17, 1787. The following July 4, Philadelphians celebrated the Constitution's ratification with a mile-long "Grand Federal Procession," led... READ MORE
The post Constitutional Reform appeared first on Yale University Press.

The post Judging in a Constitutional Democracy appeared first on Völkerrechtsblog.

The beginnings of Georgian constitutionalism go back substantially to the first years of Georgia's first democratic republic (1918-1921). On 26 May 1918, Georgia declared itself independent from Russia, establishing a democratic republic and its first constitution in 1921. Arguably, it had recognized, collected and mixed the best possible practice of constitutional doctrines of the time. Although the current 1995 constitution bases its legitimacy on the first constitution, it was only through the constitutional reform of 2017-2018 that it was modernized to return to the achievements of the first Constitution of 1921.

Stuart Ford (University of Illinois at Chicago - UIC School of Law) has posted Preambles Before the Preamble: Rediscovering the Preamble's Role in Constitutional Interpretation on SSRN. Here is the abstract: This Article explores how the Preamble to the Constitution...

In two recent Latvian cases concerning the Russian-speaking minority decided respectively in September and November 2023, the ECtHR made clear that protection of constitutional identity has now been elevated to a legitimate aim for a differential treatment under the Convention. This post explores how the protection of constitutional identity has been deployed to enable a collective punishment by association with a former occupier, and how the ECtHR's reasoning has effectively endorsed such a punishment, which is unbefitting of a liberal democratic system the ECHR aspires to represent. Until the three cases were decided, no liberal European democracy could argue without losing face that suppressing a large proportion of its population was its constitutional identity – one of the goals of its statehood. Today, this claim is seemingly kosher, marking a U-turn in the understanding of what the European human rights protection system is for minorities in Europe.

Recently, the Indian Supreme Court finished hearing oral arguments on a batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019 which extended all provisions of the Indian Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir. In the midst of the arguments, the Court pondered upon the nature of the relationship between the Constitution of India and the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. While the Court is unlikely to hand down an authoritative ruling on this relationship, the exchanges between the judges and lawyers offer us a valuable avenue to explore. By analysing the Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly Debates, this piece examines the nature of the relationship envisaged by the two constitutions. I argue that the constitutional principle that undergirded the previously existing constitutional relationship between India and Jammu and Kashmir is heterarchy.

The Supreme Court of India delivered a historic judgement on climate change and human rights in M.K. Ranjitsinh and Others v. Union of India and Others (hereinafter "M.K. Ranjitsinh") on March 21, 2024. A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice, D.Y. Chandrachud, formulated a new constitutional right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change by drawing upon Article 21 (the fundamental right to life and personal liberty) and Article 14 (the fundamental right to equality) of the Indian Constitution. The final judgement is a remarkable development for the evolution of constitutional climate litigation in India

On a lawsuit brought forth by a women's association of the indigenous Kukama people. The association sought recognition of the intrinsic rights of the Marañón River. The judgement is part of a broader constitutional trend towards recognizing nature's own rights. This movement is notably being driven by Latin American nations where indigenous perspectives on nature emphasize the intrinsic link between a healthy environment and the realization of human rights, thereby softening the adversarial stance between anthropocentrism and ecocentrism. As such, this jurisprudence may serve as catalyst for the ecological constitutional evolution of Western legal systems.

Why civil society will continue to be critical even if the AfD party ban proceedings are successful.

The post German Public Law & the Constitutional System appeared first on Völkerrechtsblog.

For a long time, we felt in Germany as though we were in a world of bliss. While the independence of the judiciary was being attacked in Poland, the USA and most recently in Israel, we were blessed with a strong constitutional court. Over the decades, it has proven to be independent and impartial; it has earned immense trust and respect among the public. However, the independence of the Federal Constitutional Court is built on sand. Now, a public debate has flared up as to whether and how the independence of the Constitutional Court should be protected. A look into other legal systems can contribute to this debate.

Joe Biden is the latest of a string of presidents to deny Congress its rightful role in war making.

The EU needs more coherent governance not just to accommodate its enlargement but to assume its global responsibilities.

The post Max Planck Encyclopedia of Comparative Constitutional Law appeared first on Völkerrechtsblog.

On 26 February, Tamás Sulyok, the former President of the Hungarian Constitutional Court, was elected Head of State by the Parliament. The election of Tamás Sulyok as a member of the Constitutional Court and then as its president was part of the process during which Fidesz took over the Constitutional Court. Sulyok's presidency (2016-2024) was a testimony to the fact that the Constitutional Court has become subservient to the Fidesz-dominated political branches, and there is no sign that he has actively tried to do anything against it. Based on what we have seen so far, therefore, Tamás Sulyok is part of the Orbán-regime, and nothing suggests that he will exercise greater autonomy and independence in his role as Head of State.