Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Alternativ können Sie versuchen, selbst über Ihren lokalen Bibliothekskatalog auf das gewünschte Dokument zuzugreifen.
Bei Zugriffsproblemen kontaktieren Sie uns gern.
51 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: World Comparative Law/VRU (Special Issue on Indian Feminist Judgments Re-writing Project, 2023 Forthcoming)
SSRN
In: Verfassung und Recht in Übersee: VRÜ = World comparative law : WCL, Band 56, Heft 1, S. 17-32
ISSN: 0506-7286
In: Elgar Research Handbook on Constitutional Interpretation (Kate O'Regan, Sujit Choudhry, Carlos Bernal eds, 2023 forthcoming)
SSRN
In: Jeff King and Richard Bellamy eds, Cambridge Handbook of Constitutional Theory (CUP 2023 Forthcoming)
SSRN
SSRN
In: (2021) 7 Canadian Journal of Comparative and Contemporary Law pp
SSRN
In: Law & ethics of human rights, Band 14, Heft 1, S. 49-95
ISSN: 1938-2545
Abstract
Many concerned citizens, including judges, bureaucrats, politicians, activists, journalists, and academics, have been claiming that Indian democracy has been imperilled under the premiership of Narendra Modi, which began in 2014. To examine this claim, the Article sets up an analytic framework for accountability mechanisms liberal democratic constitutions put in place to provide a check on the political executive. The assumption is that only if this framework is dismantled in a systemic manner can we claim that democracy itself is in peril. This framework helps distinguish between actions that one may disagree with ideologically but are nonetheless permitted by an elected government, from actions that strike at the heart of liberal democratic constitutionalism. Liberal democratic constitutions typically adopt three ways of making accountability demands on the political executive: vertically, by demanding electoral accountability to the people; horizontally, by subjecting it to accountability demands of other state institutions like the judiciary and fourth branch institutions; and diagonally, by requiring discursive accountability by the media, the academy, and civil society. This framework assures democracy over time – i.e. it guarantees democratic governance not only to the people today, but to all future peoples of India. Each elected government has the mandate to implement its policies over a wide range of matters. However, seeking to entrench the ruling party's stranglehold on power in ways that are inimical to the continued operation of democracy cannot be one of them. The Article finds that the first Modi government in power between 2014 and 2019 did indeed seek to undermine each of these three strands of executive accountability. Unlike the assault on democratic norms during India Gandhi's Emergency in the 1970s, there is little evidence of a direct or full-frontal attack during this period. The Bharatiya Janata Party government's mode of operation was subtle, indirect, and incremental, but also systemic. Hence, the Article characterizes the phenomenon as "killing a constitution by a thousand cuts." The incremental assaults on democratic governance were typically justified by a combination of a managerial rhetoric of efficiency and good governance (made plausible by the undeniable imperfection of our institutions) and a divisive rhetoric of hyper-nationalism (which brands political opponents of the party as traitors of the state). Since its resounding victory in the 2019 general elections, the Modi government appears to have moved into consolidation mode. No longer constrained by the demands of coalition partners, early signs suggest that it may abandon the incrementalist approach for a more direct assault on democratic constitutionalism.
In: Indian Law Review (Forthcoming 2020)
SSRN
In: Global constitutionalism: human rights, democracy and the rule of law, Band 8, Heft 3, S. 536-570
ISSN: 2045-3825
Abstract:Fair value of equal political liberties is a key precondition for the legitimacy of a regime in liberal thought. This liberal guarantee is breached whenever a group is permanently or semi-permanently locked out of power. Given the convertibility, subtlety, and resilience of power, gross material inequality – produced by neoliberal economic policies – effectively locks the relative poor out of political power. Such lockout breaches the legitimacy constraint on a liberal constitutional democracy. Neoliberal democracies, sooner or later, become plutocracies. This possibility should concern not only liberal political theory but also liberal constitutionalism. The usual objections to a constitutional concern with gross inequality and plutocracy – based on concerns relating to transparency, counter-majoritarianism and flexibility – are useful design instructions, but do not rule out the constitutionalisation of egalitarian and anti-plutocratic norms. A whole panoply of legal and political constitutional measures – already familiar to or incrementally developed from liberal constitutional thought and practice worldwide – could be marshalled to effectively promote material equality and resist plutocracy. These measures – documented to map the possibilities rather than as a manifesto – seek either to prevent material inequality from becoming excessive or to prevent its conversion into political inequality. Good constitutional design, depending on the context, is likely to deploy several tools from both these toolboxes.
In: Current Legal Problems (2020 forthcoming)
SSRN
Working paper
In: The Modern Law Review, Band 82, Heft 4, S. 603-632
SSRN
In: Law and Ethics of Human Rights (Forthcoming)
SSRN
Working paper
In: Tarunabh Khaitan, 'The Supreme Court as a Constitutional Watchdog' (2019) 721 Seminar 22-28
SSRN
In: 'Indirect discrimination' in Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen ed, Routledge Handbook of the Ethics of Discrimination (Routledge 2017) 30-41
SSRN
Working paper