Permanent States of Emergency and the Rule of Law explores the
impact that oxymoronic 'permanent' states of emergency have on the
validity and effectiveness of constitutional norms and, ultimately,
constituent power. It challenges the idea that many constitutional
orders are facing permanent states of emergency due to the
'objective nature' of threats facing modern states today, arguing
instead that the nature of a threat depends upon the subjective
assessment of the decision-maker. In light of this, it further
argues that robust judicial scrutiny and review of these decisions
is required to ensure that the temporariness of the emergency is a
legal question and that the validity of constitutional norms is not
undermined by their perpetual suspension. It does this by way of a
narrower conception of the rule of law than standard accounts in
favour of judicial review of emergency powers in the literature,
which tend to be based on the normative value of human rights. In
so doing it seeks to refute the fundamental constitutional
challenge posed by Carl Schmitt: that all state power cannot be
constrained by law.
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!