In 1958 Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving, two young lovers from Caroline County, Virginia, got married. Soon they were hauled out of their bedroom in the middle of the night and taken to jail. Their crime? Loving was white, Jeter was not, and in Virginia--as in twenty-three other states then--interracial marriage was illegal. Their experience reflected that of countless couples across America since colonial times. And in challenging the laws against their marriage, the Lovings closed the book on that very long chapter in the nation's history. "Race, Sex, and the Freedom to Marry" tells the story of this couple and the case that forever changed the law of race and marriage in America.

The story of the Lovings and the case they took to the Supreme Court involved a community, an extended family, and in particular five main characters--the couple, two young attorneys, and a crusty local judge who twice presided over their case--as well as such key dimensions of political and cultural life as race, gender, religion, law, identity, and family. In "Race, Sex, and the Freedom to Marry," Peter Wallenstein brings these characters and their legal travails to life, and situates them within the wider context--even at the center--of American history. Along the way, he untangles the arbitrary distinctions that long sorted out Americans by racial identity--distinctions that changed over time, varied across space, and could extend the reach of criminal law into the most remote community. In light of the related legal arguments and historical development, moreover, Wallenstein compares interracial and same-sex marriage.

A fair amount is known about the saga of the Lovings and the historic court decision that permitted them to be married and remain free. And some of what is known, Wallenstein tells us, is actually true. A detailed, in-depth account of the case, as compelling for its legal and historical insights as for its human drama, this book at long last clarifies the events and the personalities that reconfigured race, marriage, and law in America.

The right to free movement is the one privilege that EU citizens value the most in the Union, but one that has also created much political controversy in recent years, as the debates preceding the 2016 Brexit referendum aptly illustrate. This book examines how European politicians have justified and criticized free movement from the commencement of the first Commission of the EU-25 in November 2004 to the Brexit referendum in June 2016. The analysis takes into account the discourses of Heads of State, Governments and Ministers of the Interior (or Home Secretaries) of six major European states: the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Romania. In addition to these national leaders, the speeches of European Commissioners responsible for free movement matters are also considered. The book introduces a new conceptual framework for analysing practical reasoning in political discourses and applies it in the analysis of national free movement debates contextualised in respective migration histories. In addition to results related to political discourses, the study unearths wider problems related to free movement, including the diversified and variegated approaches towards different groups of movers as well as the exclusive attitudes apparent in both discourses and policies. The History and Politics of Free Movement within the European Union is of interest to anyone studying national and European politics and ideologies, contemporary history, migration policies and political argumentation.

This book considers the phenomenon of soft law employed by domestic public authorities. Lawyers have long understood that public authorities are able to issue certain communications in a way that causes them to be treated like law, even though these are neither legislation nor subordinate legislation. Importantly for soft law as a regulatory tool, people tend to treat soft law as binding even though public authorities know that it is not. It follows that soft law's 'binding' effects do not apply equally between the public authority and those to whom it is directed. Consequently, soft law is both highly effective as a means of regulation, and inherently risky for those who are regulated by it. Rather than considering soft law as a form of regulation, this book examines the possible remedies when a public authority breaches its own soft law upon which people have relied, thereby suffering loss. It considers judicial review remedies, modes of compensation which are not based upon a finding of invalidity, namely tort and equity, and 'soft' challenges outside the scope of the courts, such as through the Ombudsman or by seeking an ex gratia payment.

Constitutional courts around the world play an increasingly central role in day-to-day democratic governance. Yet scholars have only recently begun to develop the interdisciplinary analysis needed to understand this shift in the relationship of constitutional law to politics. This edited volume brings together leading scholars of constitutional law and politics to provide a comprehensive overview of judicial review, covering theories of its creation, mechanisms of its constraint, and its comparative applications, including theories of interpretation and doctrinal developments. This book serves as a single point of entry for legal scholars and practitioners interested in understanding the field of comparative judicial review in its broader political and social context. This book's comparative and interdisciplinary accounts of a phenomenon of worldwide significance and its advanced introduction to the origins, functions, and contours of judicial review make it both accessible and indispensable. Comparative Judicial Review should be considered essential reading for every graduate student, early career scholar, and constitutional law professor seeking to become more comparative in their approach. Contributors include: K.J. Alter, S.G. Calabresi, W.-C. Chang, E.F. Delaney, R. Dixon, L, Esptein, T. Ginsburg, J. Greene, A. Harel, R. Hirschl, S. Issacharoff, V. Jackson, T. Jacobi, R.A. Kagan, D. Kapiszewski, J. Knight, D. Landau, Y.-L. Lee, H. Lerner, S. Mittal, T. Roux, W. Sadurski, A. Shinar, G. Silverstein, K. Stilt, Y. Tew, M. Versteeg, S. Waheedi, B.R. Weingast, E. Zackin

"No state . . . shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." So says the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, a document held dear by Carl Cohen, a professor of philosophy and longtime champion of civil liberties who has devoted most of his adult life to the University of Michigan. So when Cohen discovered, after encountering some resistance, how his school, in its admirable wish to increase minority enrollment, was actually practicing a form of racial discrimination--calling it "affirmative action"--he found himself at odds with his longtime allies and colleagues in an effort to defend the equal treatment of the races at his university. In "A Conflict of Principles" Cohen tells the story of what happened at Michigan, how racial preferences were devised and implemented there, and what was at stake in the heated and divisive controversy that ensued. He gives voice to the judicious and seldom heard liberal argument against affirmative action in college admission policies.

In the early 1970s, as a member of the Board of Directors of the American Civil Liberties Union, Cohen vigorously supported programs devised to encourage the recruitment of minorities in colleges, and in private employment. But some of these efforts gave deliberate preference to blacks and Hispanics seeking university admission, and this Cohen recognized as a form of racism, however well-meaning. In his book he recounts the fortunes of contested affirmative action programs as they made their way through the legal system to the Supreme Court, beginning with "DeFunis v. Odegaard" (1974) at the University of Washington Law School, then "Bakke v. Regents of the University of California" (1978) at the Medical School on the UC Davis campus, and culminating at the University of Michigan in the landmark cases of "Grutter v. Bollinger" and "Gratz v. Bollinger" (2003). He recounts his role in the initiation of the Michigan cases, explaining the many arguments against racial preferences in college admissions. He presents a principled case for the resultant amendment to the Michigan constitution, of which he was a prominent advocate, which prohibited preference by race in public employment and public contracting, as well as in public education.

An eminently readable personal, consistently fair-minded account of the principles and politics that come into play in the struggles over affirmative action, "A Conflict of Principles" is a deeply thoughtful and thought-provoking contribution to our national conversation about race.

'The fields of comparative administrative law and its close cousin, regulatory law, are now experiencing the explosion that occurred a while ago in comparative constitutional law. This Bignami and Zaring volume provides both excellent introduction into these newest developments and a record of substantial research achievements.' - Martin Shapiro, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law Regulation today is global. It affects everything from e-commerce to product safety to air quality and much more. How is regulation made and enforced in the multiple domestic and international jurisdictions called upon to address the problems of international markets and global society? To understand the global regulatory process, it is necessary to move beyond conventional sub-fields of law like administrative law and international law. Drawing on contributions from an international team of leading scholars with diverse subject and country expertise, Comparative Law and Regulation introduces a new field of legal research geared at understanding the operation of the regulatory process across the world. The volume affords cutting-edge analysis of the entire gamut of regulatory law: rulemaking by bureaucracies, legislatures, and private bodies; oversight by public and private actors; civil and criminal enforcement; and judicial review. The chapters cover over thirty different domestic and international jurisdictions, including the United States, Germany, the European Union, India, China, South Korea, Colombia, the World Trade Organization, and private investor-state arbitral tribunals. The theoretical and methodological innovations introduced in this book will make it compulsory reading for scholars of public law, comparative law, and international law as well as those working in public policy, political science, and economics. For legal professionals in government agencies and the private sector, it affords both a useful theoretical framing of the complex issues involved in international and comparative regulation and an up-to-date overview of the legal and technical aspects. Contributors include: J. Baert Wiener, F. Bignami, A.R. Chapman, C. Coglianese, E.A. Feldman, C. Fish, L. Forman, J. Fowkes, D.A. Hensler, H.C.H. Hofmann, C.-Y. Huang, R.D. Kelemen, E. Lamprea, D.S. Law, D. Lima Ribeiro, J. Ohnesorge, L. Peter, S. Rose-Ackerman, G. Shaffer, J.L. Short, S. Smismans, B. Van Rooij, W. Wagner, B. Worthy, J. Yackee, D. Zaring

Whilst many of us would agree that human rights are more important than corporate profits, the reality is often different; such realities as child labour and environmental destruction caused by corporate activities make this patently clear. Recognising that balancing human rights and business interests can be problematic, Corporate Accountability considers the limits of existing complaint mechanisms and examines non-judicial alternatives for conflict resolution. The innovative approach herein compiles both long-standing international expertise and findings based on 25 key interviews from experts and victims. In contrast to the current literature, which tends to provide details on the functioning of the mechanisms, this book delves further to examine the strengths and weaknesses of each mechanism and provides criteria of excellence for non-judicial grievance mechanisms. In doing so, it provides a reality-check for corporate accountability worldwide. Novel and thought provoking, Corporate Accountability will be a captivating read for academics as well as companies interested in human rights and corporate social responsibility. It will also prove of interest to related state institutions such as development agencies and other relevant ministries such as chambers of commerce, trade unions, NGOs and civil society organisations.

The stark reality is that throughout the world, women disproportionately live in poverty. This indicates that gender can both cause and perpetuate poverty, but this is a complex and cross-cutting relationship.The full enjoyment of human rights is routinely denied to women who live in poverty. How can human rights respond and alleviate gender-based poverty? This monograph closely examines the potential of equality and non-discrimination at international law to redress gender-based poverty. It offers a sophisticated assessment of how the international human rights treaties, specifically the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which contains no obligations on poverty, can be interpreted and used to address gender-based poverty. An interpretation of CEDAW that incorporates the harms of gender-based poverty can spark a global dialogue. The book makes an important contribution to that dialogue, arguing that the CEDAW should serve as an authoritative international standard setting exercise that can activate international accountability mechanisms and inform the domestic interpretation of human rights.