For the time being, the political project of basing the European Union on a document entitled 'Constitution' has failed. The second, revised and enlarged edition of this volume retains its title nonetheless. Building on a scholarly rather than black-letter law account, it shows European constitutional law as it looks following the Treaty of Lisbon, with the EU's foundational treaties mandating the exercise of public authority, establishing a hierarchy of norms and legitimising legal acts, providing for citizenship, and granting fundamental rights. In this way the treaties shape the relations between legal orders, between public interest regulation and market economy, and between law and politics. The contributions demonstrate in detail how a constitutional approach furthers understanding of the core issues of EU law, how it offers theoretical and doctrinal insights, and how it adds critical perspective. From Reviews of the First Edition: "...should be mandatory reading for anyone who wants to get a holistic perspective of the academic debate on Europe's constitutional foundations...It is impossible to present the richness of thought contained in the 833 pages of the book in a short review. " Common Market Law Review "an enduring scholarly work, which gives an English-speaking audience important, and overdue, access to the long-standing and forever-vigorous traditions of (European) constitutional law...unhesitatingly recommend[ed]." European Law Journal "...real scholarship in the profound sense of the word..." K Lenaerts, Professor of European Law, Leuven

The United States Constitution provides in Article II, Section 4 that the President and other civil officers of the federal government are subject to removal from office upon impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate of treason, bribery and "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." However, no authoritative definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" was provided by the Framers either in the Constitution itself or in the debates at the constitutional convention. As a consequence, the meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors" has been a subject of controversy beginning with the first impeachment and trial of Judge John Pickering in 1804 and continuing through the impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton. The study seeks to discern the meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors" not only from the record of the constitutional convention and the state ratifying conventions, together with history of British parliamentary impeachments and the experience of the American colonies and states which informed the Framers' adoption of "high crimes and misdemeanors" as grounds for removal of the President, but also from the circumstances that resulted in the impeachments of Presidents Andrew Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and Clinton, as Congress labored to give substance to the "high crimes and misdemeanors" standard.

This book's principal aim is to critically address the institutional and substantive legal issues resulting from European enlargement, chiefly those relating to the legal foundations on which the enlarged Union is being built. The accession of new Member States creates the potential for a stronger and more powerful Europe. Realising this potential, however, will depend on the ability of the EU to develop functional and effective governance structures, both at the European level and at the level of the individual Member States. While the acquis communautaire will ensure that formal laws in the new Member States will be aligned with those of existing members, the question remains as to how effective institutions will be in implementing changes, and what effects the imposed changes will have on the legitimacy of the new legal framework. This book, containing the work of leading scholars in law and social sciences, examines the current and future legal framework for EU governance, and the role that new members will - or will not - play in the creation of that framework, paying particular attention to the specific challenges membership in the EU poses to the acceding states of Central and Eastern Europe. It is a book which will contribute to and influence debates over constitutionalism and legal harmonisation in the EU.

Juliano Z. Benvindo investigates the current movement of constitutional courts towards political activism, especially by focusing on the increasing use of the balancing method as a rational justification for this process. From the critical perception of the serious risks of this movement to democracy, the book takes as examples two constitutional realities, Germany and Brazil, in order to discuss the rationality, correctness, and legitimacy of constitutional decisions within this context.Through a dialogue between Jacques Derrida 's deconstruction and J rgen Habermas 's proceduralism, the author confronts Robert Alexy 's defense of the balancing method as well as those two constitutional realities. This confrontation leads to the introduction of the concept of limited rationality applied to constitutional democracy and constitutional adjudication, which affirms the double bind of history and justice as a condition for a practice of decision-making committed to the principle of separation of powers.

Corruption, being the abuse of public office for private or political gain, currently receives an increasing amount of attention from scholars and practitioners in various disciplines, including law. While the phenomenon is as old as mankind, the last fifteen years saw the rise of many anti-corruption treaties, aimed at criminalisation, prevention and cooperation. At the same time, there seems to be relatively little work done on corruption in the field of human rights law or international criminal law. This book argues that these areas of law can certainly contribute to fighting corruption, by giving a human face to both victims and perpetrators. The study commences with Part A, containing a broader analysis of the 'multi-headed monster' named corruption, looking into issues of definition, measurement, and consequences. This is followed by an overview of the content and functioning of the global and regional anti-corruption treaties that are currently in force, including the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. Hereafter, Part B considers whether or not types of corruption can be qualified as a violation of internationally recognised human rights, enshrined in the International Bill of Rights. It is argued that corruption, especially in the public sector, can have a severe negative impact upon both civil and political rights, as well as upon economic, social and cultural rights. Moreover, the study examines to what extent this is recognised by the human rights supervisory mechanisms at the global and regional level. The concluding observations and case law of the human rights treaty bodies are scrutinised, as well as the outcomes of the various Special Procedures and the Universal Periodic Review System of the UN Human Rights Council. At the regional level, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Commission and Court of Human Rights, as well as the cases of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights are discussed. Furthermore, Part C of the book aims to view corruption from the angle of international criminal law, inter alia by examining whether or not types of corruption can be qualified as a crime under international criminal law. In this context, the question is answered whether corruption can fall under the current provisions of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court de lege lata. Also, the various possibilities offered by international criminal law de lege ferenda to combat corruption are touched upon. Finally, Part D draws conclusions and formulates recommendations as to how human rights law and international criminal law can best be used to address corruption. This includes a draft General Comment on corruption and human rights, with the purpose of providing a starting point for further reflection on the topic.

First published in 1989, Michael's Foley's book deals with the 'abeyances' present in both written and unwritten constitutions, arguing that these gaps in the explicitness of a constitution, and the various ways they are preserved, provide the means by which constitutional conflict is continually postponed. Abeyances are valuable, therefore, not in spite of their obscurity, but because of it. The author illustrates his point with analyses of constitutional crises from both sides of the Atlantic. He examines the period leading up to the English civil war in the seventeenth century, and the 'imperial presidency' episode under Richard Nixon in the late 1960s and 1970s in the USA. In both cases there was no constitutionally correct solution available but, as the author demonstrates, the political skill of the participants in their use of constitutional devices allowed the anomalies of the American system to survive in a way that contrasted markedly with the plight of Charles I and the Stuart constitution. This reissue of a landmark study will be welcomed by all those interested in the interpretation and construction of constitutional law.

Commonwealth Caribbean Administrative Law comprehensively explores the nature and function of administrative law in contemporary Caribbean society. It considers the administrative machinery of Caribbean States; Parliament, the Executive and the Judiciary. It then examines the basis for judicial review of executive and administrative action in the Caribbean by looking at the statutory provisions that underpin this and the plethora of case law emerging from the region. The book will also look to how the courts in the Commonwealth Caribbean have sought to define principles of administrative law. This book will also consider the alternative methods by which the rights of citizens are protected, including the use of tribunals and inquiries, as well as looking forward to the increasingly significant role of Caribbean Community law and bodies such as CARICOM and the OECS.

According to Braveman, the federal courts are being systematically closed to individuals challenging the constitutionality of the conduct of state officials. Debate over the role of the federal court system in upholding constitutional rights is not new to readers of law journals and scholarly articles. Braveman now presents this crucial issue to the general public, who will find it of grave concern. His book brings together information that has previously been available only in separate articles. Beginning with an historical overview of the emergence of the federal courts as the guardian of constitutional rights, Braveman then focuses on specific cases and doctrines to illustrate a radical change in our judicial philosophy. His book brings together information that has previously been available only in separate articles.

Transconstitutionalism is a concept used to describe what happens to constitutional law when it is emancipated from the state, in which can be found the origins of constitutional law. Transconstitutionalism does not exist because a multitude of new constitutions have appeared, but because other legal orders are now implicated in resolving basic constitutional problems. A transconstitutional problem entails a constitutional issue whose solution may involve national, international, supranational and transnational courts or arbitral tribunals, as well as native local legal institutions. Transconstitutionalism does not take any single legal order or type of order as a starting-point or ultima ratio. It rejects both nation-statism and internationalism, supranationalism, transnationalism and localism as privileged spaces for solving constitutional problems. The transconstitutional model avoids the dilemma of 'monism versus pluralism'. From the standpoint of transconstitutionalism, a plurality of legal orders entails a complementary and conflicting relationship between identity and alterity: constitutional identity is rearticulated on the basis of alterity. Rather than seeking a 'Herculean Constitution', transconstitutionalism tackles the many-headed Hydra of constitutionalism, always looking for the blind spot in one legal system and reflecting it back against the many others found in the world's legal orders.

This edited volume is a comprehensive examination of the legal framework in which environmental policy is fashioned in the major English-speaking federations-the United States, Canada, and Australia. The need for national solutions to environmental problems emerged long after the largest share of governmental power was allotted to states or provinces. This volume attempts to solve the paradox of how a country can have effective laws protecting the environment, vigorously enforced, when legislative and administrative powers are divided between two tiers of government. The contributors analyze environmental lawmaking along three dimensions. Part I describes the formal constitutional allocation of powers between states or provinces and the federal government, concluding that on paper environmental protection is essentially a local responsibility, although the reality is far different. In Part II the contributors explore the extent to which governments resort to informal negotiations among themselves to resolve environmental disputes. Part III is a thorough canvassing of the judiciary's role in making environmental policy and resolving disputes between levels and branches of government. In Australia and Canada, the courts play a relatively less important role in formulating policy than in the United States. In conclusion, the work shows that the level of environmental protection is relatively high in these three federations. Environmental politics, the work suggests, may be less divisive in federations than in unitary systems with comparable levels of development.

An overarching question of contemporary constitutionalism is whether equilibriums devised prior to the emergence of the modern administrative-industrial state can be preserved or recreated by means of fundamental law. The book approaches this problem indirectly, through the conceptual lens offered by constitutional developments relating to the adoption of normative limitations on the delegation of law-making authority. Three analytical strands (constitutional theory, constitutional history, and contemporary constitutional and administrative law) run through the argument. They merge into a broader account of the conceptual ramifications, the phenomenon, and the constitutional treatment of delegation in a number of paradigmatic legal systems. As it is argued, the development and failure of constitutional rules imposing limits on legislative delegation reveal the conditions for the possibility of classical limited government and, conversely, the erosion of normativity in contemporary constitutionalism.

This book offers a comprehensive systematic analysis of the European Union 's Early Warning System (EWS) for subsidiarity, which was introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon. The book includes both a detailed theoretical analysis of the EWS as well as an assessment of how national parliaments have responded to EU legislative proposals under the system. Philipp Kiiver explores whether the EWS could function as a mechanism of legal accountability offering a partial remedy to the European Union 's much-discussed accountability deficit. The Early Warning System for the Principle of Subsidiarity provides an overview of the historical developments of national parliamentary involvement in the EU and also considers the broader implications of the EWS, including its relationship to democracy and legitimacy.

The book will be of particular interest to academics and students of EU Law, Constitutional Law and Political Science.

View the Table of Contents.
Read the Introduction.

"An uplifting book."
--"Choice"

"Refreshingly straightforward. Fiss writes in the style of John Marshall, sweeping the reader along with vigorous argumentation."
--"The Law and Politics Book Review"

The Law As It Could Be gathers Fiss's most important work on procedure, adjudication and public reason, introduced by the author and including contextual introductions for each piece--some of which are among the most cited in Twentieth Century legal studies. Fiss surveys the legal terrain between the landmark cases of "Brown v. Board of Education" and "Bush v. Gore" to reclaim the legal legacy of the Civil Rights Movement. He argues forcefully for a vision of judges as instruments of public reason and of the courts as a means of shaping society in the image of the Constitution.

In building his argument, Fiss attends to topics as diverse as the use of the injunction to restructure social institutions; how law and economics have misunderstood the role of the judge; why the movement seeking alternatives to adjudication fails to serve the public interest; and why "Bush v. Gore" was not the constitutional crisis some would have us believe. In so doing, Fiss reveals a vision of adjudication that vindicates the public reason on which "Brown v. Board of Education" was founded.

Enlargement and treaty reform have moved Europe's constitutional debate into the political spotlight. This important new text outlines the main themes of constitutional debate in the EU, analyzes formal and informal constitution-building since the early days of European integration, and introduces the actors and structures behind treaty change.

This book offers a rigorous, theory-based, and uniquely comprehensive analysis of European and international legal standards shaping minorities' right to freedom of expression. The analysis pays particular attention to the instrumental role played by traditional and new forms of media in ensuring that the right to freedom of expression of persons belonging to minorities is effective in practice. The relevant international legal framework is set out in detail, including a careful examination of the relationship between generalist and minority-specific international human rights instruments. Attention is paid to the historical circumstances in which key instruments were developed and to the contemporary context in which they are now being interpreted. The analysis is also informed by an awareness of institutional and political dynamics. All of this forms the basis for the book's central objective: to mount a critical evaluation of the existing international legal framework governing freedom of expression for minorities, while drawing on theoretical insights gained from human rights scholarship and communications science. The first major focus of the evaluation is the regulation and restriction of expression to protect minority rights, in which issues - such as pluralism, tolerance, and "hate speech" - are centrally featured. The book's second major focus - the regulation and facilitation of expression to promote minority rights - explores cultural and linguistic rights and media access questions. (Series: School of Human Rights Research - Vol. 44) *** "McGonagle's book is an invaluable read for anyone researching minority rights and freedom of expression and of the media under international or European laws." - NYU Journal of International Law and Politics, Volume 45, Issue 3, 2013

Fundamental rights provisions are known for their relatively vague and general formulation. As a result, judges dealing with these provisions are confronted with many and often controversial interpretative choices. These interpretative choices already present judges operating in a national context with difficulties, but that is even more so for European judges operating in a multilevel context. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) are often criticized for delivering judgments that contain debatable choices and do not offer sufficient insight into the reasons which have led the courts to make these choices. Especially in a multilevel context where the cooperation of national authorities plays an important role as regards the effectiveness of the European courts, it is important that interpretation methods and principles are used in a transparent manner so that the reasons that justify a specific interpretative choice are clear. This volume analyses the use of a selected number of interpretation methods and principles in the fundamental rights case law of the ECtHR and the CJEU. The use of teleological, comparative, evolutive and autonomous interpretation by the ECtHR and the CJEU are elaborately discussed on the basis of both legal theoretical literature and case law. The legal theoretical analysis provides the basis for various relevant questions, hypotheses and (analytical) suggestions, that are further studied in the subsequent case law analysis. This leads to a thorough overview of the role of these interpretation methods and principles and the possibilities for improvement. This volume has been written as a PhD Thesis by Hanneke Senden (Institute for Public Law, University of Leiden; presently lawyer at Van Doorne, the Netherlands) in the framework of the research project 'Judicial reasoning in fundamental rights cases - national and European perspectives', supervised by professor J.H. Gerards and funded by the Netherlands Organisation of Scientific Research (NWO).

Over the years of the developing judicial review of ministerial and governmental decisions, Louis Blom-Cooper was a leading advocate who grew up with the advent of a distinctive brand of public law. His range of public activities, both in and outwith the courtroom, saw him dubbed by his colleagues as a polymath practitioner.It included chairmanship of plural public inquiries in child abuse and mental health, media contributions in the broadsheet press and in broadcasting, and innovation in penal reform, as an ardent campaigner for the abolition of capital punishment and a plea for a modern Homicide Act. He styled himself as a modern, reconstructed liberal - a man before his time. This collection of essays is uniquely prefaced by a self-examination of his unorthodox philosophy towards the law in action. It covers a variety of socio-legal topics that expresses his ambition to inform a poorly-educated public on the workings of the legal system. This aim involves a discussion of the constitutional history of Britain, unwritten and insufficiently interpreted; it reflects a commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights and portrays its international origins. The collection opines on crime and punishment; in the functioning of the courts and elsewhere the political shift from the penal optimism of the 1970s to the reactionary punitiveness of the post-1990s. The essays conclude with a miscellany of affairs, reflecting on professional practices and their product of judicial heroes in Lord Reid and Lord Bingham.

This book offers a comprehensive argument for why pre-existing international law on cluster munitions was inadequate to deal with the full scope of humanitarian consequences associated with their use. The book undertakes an interdisciplinary legal analysis of restraints and prohibitions on the use of cluster munitions under international humanitarian law, human rights law, and international criminal law, as well as in relation to the recently adopted Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM). The book goes on to offer an in-depth substantive and procedural analysis of the negotiations which led to the 2008 CCM, in part based on the author's experiences as an adviser to Cluster Munitions Coalition-Austria.

Cluster Munitions and International Law is essential reading for practitioners and scholars of International Law, including International Humanitarian, Human Rights, International Criminal or Disarmament Law and anyone interested in legal and humanitarian perspectives on cluster munitions legislation and policy. It is unique in bringing a practitioner's perspective to a scholarly work.

On December 24, 1968, ten-year-old Pamela Powers was brutally murdered, her body dumped at the side of the road to freeze. Robert Anthony Williams was charged with the crime, and a series of trials, appeals, and reversals ensued. The Christian Burial Case: An Introduction to Criminal and Judicial Procedure introduces readers to the intricacies of the American legal system, using the Williams case to illustrate all the stages of the legal process from the point of arrest, to the trial, the appellate process, and, ultimately, the Supreme Court. The text clearly and concisely explains criminal and court procedures in the context of the Williams case, paying careful attention to the rights against self-incrimination and to counsel, and to the role of the exclusionary rule in our system of justice. This unique introduction to criminal justice and judicial procedure captures the imagination of the reader as it chronicles "The Christian Burial" case from beginning to end. Because the suspect was observed leaving the scene of the crime with the body of the victim, the Williams case seemed to be open and shut. But due to police procedures in apprehending and questioning the suspect, the resolution of the case took fifteen years and two United States Supreme Court decisions. By highlighting the difficulties of determining the facts of the case and the proper procedural laws that were applicable, McInnis demonstrates the complexities inherent in the legal system. This compelling book is a must-read for all people interested in learning more about criminal procedure and judicial processes.

The use of economics in public policy, in the form of ex ante Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), is strongly advocated by international organizations such as the OECD and the World Bank. In the US and the EU, hundreds of RIAs are produced every year to justify public intervention in the form of regulation. But reality shows that in many other countries the adoption and implementation of this tool has been patchy at best. At the same time, the economics used in RIA is heavily challenged by scholarly developments such as behavioral economics, neuroeconomics and the study of social norms, and was also unable to predict and cure the financial crisis that hit the global economy in 2007. The book claims that RIA should incorporate recent developments in the law and economics literature and provides an analysis of the potential contribution of positive, normative and functional schools of law and economics to the practice of RIA. The book contains thematic applications to policy fields such as environmental protection, energy efficiency, financial markets, antitrust, cyberspace and telecommunications. The book provides far-reaching recommendations on the future of law and economics, as well as on the organization of RIA systems around the world, particularly in the US and the EU.

First published in 1989, Michael's Foley's book deals with the 'abeyances' present in both written and unwritten constitutions, arguing that these gaps in the explicitness of a constitution, and the various ways they are preserved, provide the means by which constitutional conflict is continually postponed. Abeyances are valuable, therefore, not in spite of their obscurity, but because of it. The author illustrates his point with analyses of constitutional crises from both sides of the Atlantic. He examines the period leading up to the English civil war in the seventeenth century, and the 'imperial presidency' episode under Richard Nixon in the late 1960s and 1970s in the USA. In both cases there was no constitutionally correct solution available but, as the author demonstrates, the political skill of the participants in their use of constitutional devices allowed the anomalies of the American system to survive in a way that contrasted markedly with the plight of Charles I and the Stuart constitution. This reissue of a landmark study will be welcomed by all those interested in the interpretation and construction of constitutional law.

Legislatures sometimes adopt laws that create a special legal regime for a particular case rather than general rules for an indefinite number of situations or persons. These ad hoc laws are controversial. Politically, legislatures may be forced to act in one specific case (for example as a respond to a public outcry), but in doing so they risk violating the principles of the rule of law. Such legislative practice might lead to abuse of legislative power, inequality of citizens before the law, legal uncertainty, and weakening of the position of the courts. The purpose of this first in-depth comparative study in the fields of constitutional law and legislative studies is to clarify the use and existence of ad hoc laws and to place them within a constitutional framework of the rule of law. It is a comparative study of the United States, Germany and the Netherlands. Those who will benefit from this book are constitutional law/legislation/human rights academics, constitutional law practitioners, judges from constitutional courts, legislative lawyers and legislators. This book provides innovative and profound insights from a comparative perspective and is a valuable addition to library collections.

Historiography, Empire and the Rule of Law considers the intersection of these terms in the historical development of what has come to be known as the 'rule of law'. The separation of governmental powers, checks and balances, and judicial independence signified something entirely new in the way in which politics was imagined and practiced. This 'rule of law' cannot, as it often is, be traced to the justification and practice of government as originating in a social contract among the governed; but rather, by analogy with a popular conveyancing innovation of the era, to the trust - a device by which the power of ownership of land could be restrained. But how could the restraint of power remain consistent with the avoidance of anarchic disagreement among those granted the task of supervision and restraint? In response, it is argued here, the central legal and political task became one of managing disagreement and change peacefully and constructively - by drawing on a colonial tradition that emphasised civility, negotiation and compromise. And the study of all of these qualities as they evolved, Ian Duncanson contends, is vital to understanding the emergence of the 'rule of law'. Historiography, Empire and the Rule of Law will be invaluable for all those engaged in research and the postgraduate study of socio-legal and constitutional studies, and early modern and modern history.

Terror attacks on western civilian targets have stimulated interest in the dilemmas faced by liberal societies when combating threats to national security. Combining the perspectives of political science and law, this book addresses that discourse, asking how democracies seek to harmonize the protection of individual liberties with the defence of state interests. The book focuses on the experience of Israel, a country whose commitment to democratic values has continuously been challenged by multiple threats to national survival. It examines the legal, legislative and institutional methods employed to resolve the dilemmas generated by that situation, and thus provides a unique interpretation of Israeli national security behaviour. Policy-making and policy-implementation in this sphere, it shows, have reflected not just external constraints but also shifts in the domestic balance of power between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. The book concludes with an agenda of the measures that each branch of government needs to implement in order to repair the flaws that have developed in this system over time. Based on a close reading of legislative and court readings, the book proposes a new taxonomy for the analysis of national security legal frameworks, both in Israel and elsewhere in the democratic world. As such it will be of great interest to students and scholars of political science, national security law, Israeli history and civil-military relations.