首页 > 最新文献

Global Constitutionalism最新文献

英文 中文
Liberal-democratic norms under contestation: Norm relations and their decoupling in the US Supreme Court’s decisions on abortion 受到质疑的自由民主准则:美国最高法院关于堕胎的裁决中的规范关系及其脱钩
Q1 Arts and Humanities Pub Date : 2024-04-22 DOI: 10.1017/s2045381724000042
Janne Mende
This article studies the contestation of liberal-democratic norms from within the liberal international order (LIO), focusing on the case of abortion rights. The US Supreme Court’s decisions on abortion, central to both domestic and global debates, provide a compelling case study of how two opposing sides may invoke the same norms, rather than presenting a case of norm collision or co-optation. In contrast to the binary pro-choice versus anti-abortionist framing, this article shows that both sides invoke liberal-democratic norms, but differ in how they relate the norms to each other and how they interrupt established norm relations. Against this background, the article introduces the concept of norm decoupling, highlighting how norm entrepreneurs isolate certain norms from hitherto related norms. This process contributes to a more subtle backsliding of the LIO, particularly by decoupling majority votes from other democratic, substantial norms, and by decoupling liberal-democratic norms from their gendered dimensions. Norm decoupling thus explains diverging interpretations of shared norms within the same context. This advances our understanding of norm contestation and interpretation, shedding light on how liberal-democratic norms subtly erode from within the LIO.
本文以堕胎权为案例,研究了自由民主准则在自由国际秩序(LIO)中的争论。美国最高法院关于堕胎的裁决是国内和全球辩论的核心,它提供了一个令人信服的案例研究,说明对立双方如何援引相同的规范,而不是提出规范碰撞或共同采纳的案例。与支持堕胎与反对堕胎的二元对立框架不同,本文表明,双方都援引了自由民主准则,但在如何将准则相互联系以及如何中断既定准则关系方面存在差异。在此背景下,文章引入了 "规范脱钩"(norm decoupling)的概念,强调了规范制定者如何将某些规范从迄今为止相关的规范中分离出来。这一过程导致了 LIO 更微妙的倒退,特别是通过将多数票与其他民主、实质性规范脱钩,以及将自由民主规范与其性别维度脱钩。因此,规范脱钩解释了在同一背景下对共同规范的不同解释。这推进了我们对规范争论和解释的理解,揭示了自由民主规范是如何从 LIO 内部微妙地侵蚀的。
{"title":"Liberal-democratic norms under contestation: Norm relations and their decoupling in the US Supreme Court’s decisions on abortion","authors":"Janne Mende","doi":"10.1017/s2045381724000042","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045381724000042","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article studies the contestation of liberal-democratic norms from within the liberal international order (LIO), focusing on the case of abortion rights. The US Supreme Court’s decisions on abortion, central to both domestic and global debates, provide a compelling case study of how two opposing sides may invoke the same norms, rather than presenting a case of norm collision or co-optation. In contrast to the binary pro-choice versus anti-abortionist framing, this article shows that both sides invoke liberal-democratic norms, but differ in how they relate the norms to each other and how they interrupt established norm relations. Against this background, the article introduces the concept of norm decoupling, highlighting how norm entrepreneurs isolate certain norms from hitherto related norms. This process contributes to a more subtle backsliding of the LIO, particularly by decoupling majority votes from other democratic, substantial norms, and by decoupling liberal-democratic norms from their gendered dimensions. Norm decoupling thus explains diverging interpretations of shared norms within the same context. This advances our understanding of norm contestation and interpretation, shedding light on how liberal-democratic norms subtly erode from within the LIO.","PeriodicalId":37136,"journal":{"name":"Global Constitutionalism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140674740","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Comparative political process theory II 比较政治进程理论 II
Q1 Arts and Humanities Pub Date : 2024-03-19 DOI: 10.1017/s2045381724000029
Stephen Gardbaum
This article aims to continue the recent neo-Elyean turn in comparative constitutional scholarship by further exploring the role of the courts in supporting and protecting democracy. In so doing, it refines and develops my previous work on the topic, and applies this fuller version to a highly visible current dispute. The article first examines the underlying conception of democracy that comparative political process theory is designed to protect; namely, constitutional democracy. It asks what this is and what role courts have in supporting it. The article then introduces the idea of ‘semi-substantive review’ as an integral and output-oriented part of a comprehensive comparative political process theory, alongside and in addition to the types of more purely procedural review I primarily emphasized in my previous work. Finally, the article employs the recent, highly controversial judicial reforms in Israel as a case study in applying the criteria for, and limits of, court intervention in my account. It analyses whether, why and how, in the event that the deeply contested bills become law (as so far one did), judges would be justified in acting to support and protect constitutional democracy.
本文旨在通过进一步探讨法院在支持和保护民主方面的作用,继续比较宪法学术界最近的新伊利耶转向。在此过程中,文章完善并发展了我之前关于这一主题的研究,并将这一更全面的版本应用于当前备受瞩目的争端中。文章首先探讨了比较政治进程理论旨在保护的民主的基本概念,即宪政民主。文章提出了什么是宪政民主以及法院在支持宪政民主方面的作用。然后,文章介绍了 "半实质性审查 "这一概念,它是全面的比较政治过程理论中不可或缺的、以产出为导向的一部分,与我在以前的著作中主要强调的纯粹程序性审查类型并行不悖。最后,文章以以色列近期极具争议的司法改革为案例,应用我的论述中法院干预的标准和限制。文章分析了在争议激烈的法案成为法律的情况下(迄今为止已有一项法案成为法律),法官是否有理由采取行动支持和保护宪政民主,为什么以及如何采取行动。
{"title":"Comparative political process theory II","authors":"Stephen Gardbaum","doi":"10.1017/s2045381724000029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045381724000029","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article aims to continue the recent neo-Elyean turn in comparative constitutional scholarship by further exploring the role of the courts in supporting and protecting democracy. In so doing, it refines and develops my previous work on the topic, and applies this fuller version to a highly visible current dispute. The article first examines the underlying conception of democracy that comparative political process theory is designed to protect; namely, constitutional democracy. It asks what this is and what role courts have in supporting it. The article then introduces the idea of ‘semi-substantive review’ as an integral and output-oriented part of a comprehensive comparative political process theory, alongside and in addition to the types of more purely procedural review I primarily emphasized in my previous work. Finally, the article employs the recent, highly controversial judicial reforms in Israel as a case study in applying the criteria for, and limits of, court intervention in my account. It analyses whether, why and how, in the event that the deeply contested bills become law (as so far one did), judges would be justified in acting to support and protect constitutional democracy.","PeriodicalId":37136,"journal":{"name":"Global Constitutionalism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140228750","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Constitutionalizing dissent: The universe of opposition rules in African constitutions 异议的宪法化:非洲宪法中的反对规则
Q1 Arts and Humanities Pub Date : 2024-03-11 DOI: 10.1017/s2045381724000030
Danny Schindler
Constitutions are the most important legal foundation of politics. At the same time, the existence of a viable parliamentary opposition has been regarded one of the most distinctive characteristics of democracy. Bringing the two perspectives together, the principle of opposition can be constitutionalized to gain the highest status. Importantly, we refer to norms recognizing the opposition as such. Such counter-majoritarian rules are distinct because they empower opposition forces irrespective of their seat share and explicitly acknowledge that power should not be monopolized. While our subject has attracted little interest from comparative constitutionalists, it is too important to be overlooked. This is particularly true for autocratizing regimes where incumbents seek to use legislative lawfare to repress their opponents. Empirically, the study focuses on Africa, which proves revealing for various reasons. Among others, it addresses the critique that constitutional law studies often concentrate on usual suspect cases used to reveal purportedly universal insights. Our exercise in comparative constitutional law leads to two main conclusions that go beyond the continent. First, while we find a high number of opposition-related rules, the variation in design details and scope suggests that referring to the principle of opposition in an abstract manner is somewhat obscuring. And second, the obvious virtues of constitutionalizing dissent face noteworthy pitfalls since pertinent rules can lack legal clarity and even suppress dissent. Hence, the dividends of nominally democratic rules might be smaller than expected even if constitutional designers sincerely intend to fully uphold them in practice.
宪法是政治最重要的法律基础。同时,可行的议会反对派的存在也被视为民主最显著的特征之一。将这两个视角结合起来,反对派原则就可以被宪法化,从而获得最高地位。重要的是,我们指的是承认反对派的规范。这种反多数规则与众不同,因为它们赋予反对派力量权力,而不论其席位份额,并明确承认权力不应被垄断。虽然比较宪法学家对我们的课题兴趣不大,但它的重要性不容忽视。对于那些在位者试图利用立法战来镇压对手的专制政权来说,这一点尤为重要。从经验上看,本研究以非洲为重点,由于种种原因,这一点具有启发性。除其他原因外,它还回应了人们的批评,即宪法研究往往集中于惯常的可疑案例,用来揭示所谓的普遍见解。我们的比较宪法学研究得出了两个超越非洲大陆的主要结论。首先,尽管我们发现了大量与反对相关的规则,但设计细节和范围上的差异表明,抽象地提及反对原则有些模糊不清。其次,异议宪法化的明显优点也面临着值得注意的缺陷,因为相关规则可能缺乏法律明确性,甚至会压制异议。因此,即使宪法设计者真诚地打算在实践中充分维护这些规则,名义上的民主规则所带来的红利也可能比预期的要小。
{"title":"Constitutionalizing dissent: The universe of opposition rules in African constitutions","authors":"Danny Schindler","doi":"10.1017/s2045381724000030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045381724000030","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Constitutions are the most important legal foundation of politics. At the same time, the existence of a viable parliamentary opposition has been regarded one of the most distinctive characteristics of democracy. Bringing the two perspectives together, the principle of opposition can be constitutionalized to gain the highest status. Importantly, we refer to norms recognizing the opposition as such. Such counter-majoritarian rules are distinct because they empower opposition forces irrespective of their seat share and explicitly acknowledge that power should not be monopolized. While our subject has attracted little interest from comparative constitutionalists, it is too important to be overlooked. This is particularly true for autocratizing regimes where incumbents seek to use legislative lawfare to repress their opponents. Empirically, the study focuses on Africa, which proves revealing for various reasons. Among others, it addresses the critique that constitutional law studies often concentrate on usual suspect cases used to reveal purportedly universal insights. Our exercise in comparative constitutional law leads to two main conclusions that go beyond the continent. First, while we find a high number of opposition-related rules, the variation in design details and scope suggests that referring to the principle of opposition in an abstract manner is somewhat obscuring. And second, the obvious virtues of constitutionalizing dissent face noteworthy pitfalls since pertinent rules can lack legal clarity and even suppress dissent. Hence, the dividends of nominally democratic rules might be smaller than expected even if constitutional designers sincerely intend to fully uphold them in practice.","PeriodicalId":37136,"journal":{"name":"Global Constitutionalism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140251763","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
A theory of plural constituent power for federal systems 联邦制的多元制宪权理论
Q1 Arts and Humanities Pub Date : 2024-01-19 DOI: 10.1017/s2045381723000400
Nicholas Aroney, George Duke, Stephen Tierney
Federations present difficulties for prevailing theories of constituent power, which usually attribute ultimate constitution-making authority to a singular people. This article examines how a ‘pluralized’ constituent power functions in federal systems. It argues that the operation of plural constituent power in federations reflects a distinctive model of constitutional formation according to which a ‘polity of polities’ is established and sustained through the maintenance of a tension between plurality and unity.
联邦制给现行的制宪权理论带来了困难,因为这些理论通常将最终的制宪权归于单一民族。本文探讨了 "多元化 "制宪权如何在联邦制中发挥作用。文章认为,联邦制中多元制宪权的运作反映了一种独特的制宪模式,根据这种模式,"政体中的政体 "是通过维持多元与统一之间的紧张关系而建立和维持的。
{"title":"A theory of plural constituent power for federal systems","authors":"Nicholas Aroney, George Duke, Stephen Tierney","doi":"10.1017/s2045381723000400","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045381723000400","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Federations present difficulties for prevailing theories of constituent power, which usually attribute ultimate constitution-making authority to a singular people. This article examines how a ‘pluralized’ constituent power functions in federal systems. It argues that the operation of plural constituent power in federations reflects a distinctive model of constitutional formation according to which a ‘polity of polities’ is established and sustained through the maintenance of a tension between plurality and unity.","PeriodicalId":37136,"journal":{"name":"Global Constitutionalism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139525015","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
A constitutional reflector? Assessing societal and digital constitutionalism in Meta’s Oversight Board 宪法反射器?评估 Meta 监督委员会中的社会宪政和数字宪政
Q1 Arts and Humanities Pub Date : 2024-01-17 DOI: 10.1017/s2045381723000394
Lucas Henrique Muniz da Conceição
This article explores the use of constitutional narratives in social media platform governance, addressing the concept of digital constitutionalism. It aims to elucidate how digital constitutionalism manifests in platforms and the implications for democratizing these governance environments. It argues that digital constitutionalism exposes three goals toward platform governance: (1) an analogous application of constitutional values in private landscapes; (2) an ideological framework permeating multiple normativity levels; and (3) a policy consideration framing the symmetry of regulatory efforts with fundamental values. These three objectives hinge on a liberal and normative approach to constitutionalism, detaching from the political and social considerations at the centre of constitutional democracy. The article argues that this leads to extensive legitimacy issues when considering the transnational character of social media platforms and the localized issues of its users, as explored through an analysis of Meta’s Oversight Board. It is argued that a societal perspective of (digital) constitutionalism must guide the institution’s goals and procedures to promote legitimacy and accountability. This societal approach exposes the reliability issues of the established self-referencing system. It also allows an analysis of the hybridization of traditional constitutional principles in the emerging societal constitution developed by the corporation.
本文探讨了宪法叙事在社交媒体平台治理中的应用,涉及数字宪政的概念。文章旨在阐明数字宪法主义在平台中的表现形式以及对这些治理环境民主化的影响。文章认为,数字宪法主义揭示了平台治理的三个目标:(1)宪法价值在私人领域的类比应用;(2)渗透到多个规范性层面的意识形态框架;以及(3)将监管工作与基本价值对称起来的政策考虑。这三个目标都以自由和规范的宪政方法为基础,脱离了宪政民主核心的政治和社会考量。文章认为,在考虑社交媒体平台的跨国性及其用户的本地化问题时,这会导致广泛的合法性问题。本文认为,(数字)宪政的社会视角必须指导该机构的目标和程序,以促进合法性和问责制。这种社会视角揭示了既定自我参照系统的可靠性问题。它还允许对公司制定的新兴社会宪法中传统宪法原则的混合进行分析。
{"title":"A constitutional reflector? Assessing societal and digital constitutionalism in Meta’s Oversight Board","authors":"Lucas Henrique Muniz da Conceição","doi":"10.1017/s2045381723000394","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045381723000394","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article explores the use of constitutional narratives in social media platform governance, addressing the concept of digital constitutionalism. It aims to elucidate how digital constitutionalism manifests in platforms and the implications for democratizing these governance environments. It argues that digital constitutionalism exposes three goals toward platform governance: (1) an analogous application of constitutional values in private landscapes; (2) an ideological framework permeating multiple normativity levels; and (3) a policy consideration framing the symmetry of regulatory efforts with fundamental values. These three objectives hinge on a liberal and normative approach to constitutionalism, detaching from the political and social considerations at the centre of constitutional democracy. The article argues that this leads to extensive legitimacy issues when considering the transnational character of social media platforms and the localized issues of its users, as explored through an analysis of Meta’s Oversight Board. It is argued that a societal perspective of (digital) constitutionalism must guide the institution’s goals and procedures to promote legitimacy and accountability. This societal approach exposes the reliability issues of the established self-referencing system. It also allows an analysis of the hybridization of traditional constitutional principles in the emerging societal constitution developed by the corporation.","PeriodicalId":37136,"journal":{"name":"Global Constitutionalism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139618078","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Between militant democracy and citizen vigilantism: Using citizens’ assemblies to keep parties democratic 介于激进民主与公民自卫军之间:利用公民大会保持政党民主
Q1 Arts and Humanities Pub Date : 2023-12-15 DOI: 10.1017/s2045381723000382
T. Olsen, Juha Tuovinen
The essential role of parties in democracies makes it important to keep them democratic. This article argues for sortition-based citizens’ assemblies (CAs) organized in and by civil society to formulate democratic standards for political parties to follow, to evaluate them individually and to criticize them publicly if they do not. This is a third and potentially complementary way to keeping parties democratic, placed between militant democracy on the one hand and citizen vigilantism on the other. Militant democracy is challenged by the fact that few democratically problematic parties are ostensibly anti-democratic and therefore likely to fall under the legal criteria for issuing party bans and other legal sanctions. Militant democratic measures are also likely to be ineffective and are vulnerable to abuse. Citizen vigilantism, whereby active democratic citizens take on the responsibility for protecting democracy, deals better with the ambiguous nature of democratically problematic parties but suffers from a lack of democratic authorization and clear standards of critique. While not perfect, the proposed model remedies many of the shortcomings of both approaches. Contributing to an emerging literature on CAs as instruments in the protection of democracy, the article evaluates the model’s normative justifiability, feasibility and likely effectiveness.
政党在民主政体中发挥着重要作用,因此保持政党的民主性十分重要。本文主张由民间社会组织基于排序的公民大会(CAs)来制定政党应遵循的民主标准,对政党进行单独评估,并在政党不遵循民主标准时对其进行公开批评。这是保持政党民主的第三种可能的补充方式,介于激进民主与公民自律之间。激进民主面临的挑战是,很少有民主上有问题的政党表面上是反民主的,因此很可能符合发布政党禁令和其他法律制裁的法律标准。激进的民主措施也很可能无效,而且容易被滥用。公民警戒主义,即积极的民主公民承担起保护民主的责任,能较好地解决有民主问题的党派性质模糊的问题,但缺乏民主授权和明确的批评标准。所提出的模式虽不完美,但弥补了这两种方法的许多不足。文章评估了该模式在规范方面的合理性、可行性和可能的有效性,为有关作为保护民主工具的宪法机构的新兴文献做出了贡献。
{"title":"Between militant democracy and citizen vigilantism: Using citizens’ assemblies to keep parties democratic","authors":"T. Olsen, Juha Tuovinen","doi":"10.1017/s2045381723000382","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045381723000382","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The essential role of parties in democracies makes it important to keep them democratic. This article argues for sortition-based citizens’ assemblies (CAs) organized in and by civil society to formulate democratic standards for political parties to follow, to evaluate them individually and to criticize them publicly if they do not. This is a third and potentially complementary way to keeping parties democratic, placed between militant democracy on the one hand and citizen vigilantism on the other. Militant democracy is challenged by the fact that few democratically problematic parties are ostensibly anti-democratic and therefore likely to fall under the legal criteria for issuing party bans and other legal sanctions. Militant democratic measures are also likely to be ineffective and are vulnerable to abuse. Citizen vigilantism, whereby active democratic citizens take on the responsibility for protecting democracy, deals better with the ambiguous nature of democratically problematic parties but suffers from a lack of democratic authorization and clear standards of critique. While not perfect, the proposed model remedies many of the shortcomings of both approaches. Contributing to an emerging literature on CAs as instruments in the protection of democracy, the article evaluates the model’s normative justifiability, feasibility and likely effectiveness.","PeriodicalId":37136,"journal":{"name":"Global Constitutionalism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138996845","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Dead or alive? Global constitutionalism and international law after the start of the war in Ukraine 是死是活?乌克兰战争爆发后的全球宪政与国际法
Q1 Arts and Humanities Pub Date : 2023-12-13 DOI: 10.1017/s2045381723000369
Takao Suami
Russia’s continued aggression against Ukraine has sent shock waves around the world. Russia has violated the most fundamental rule of international law and most people intuitively feel that the war in Ukraine has changed the entire landscape of international society. Given what is clearly a turning point, it is difficult to assume that global constitutionalism founded on ‘human rights, the rule of law and democracy’, called ‘the constitutional trinity’, will not undergo any changes. Can global constitutionalism survive such a difficult moment? This is a fundamental question that global constitutionalists must address. This article answers this question in the affirmative. First, despite its gross violations of international law, Russia is not necessarily attempting to withdraw from the current framework of international law. The existing individual-centred elements in international law, which are the central pillar of global constitutionalism, will not be replaced by any alternatives. Second, even if the existing framework of international law remains viable, there is an undeniable risk that the polarization of international law accelerated by the ongoing war will negatively affect global constitutionalism. Such polarization may hollow out the constitutional trinity in international law. However, global constitutionalism will continue to function as the principal cognitive framework for international society because the exercise of individuals’ rights embedded in international law will incessantly provide energy for global constitutionalism. This article concludes that insofar as international law keeps its individual elements, global constitutionalism will be able to retain its normative power under the present predicament in the world.
俄罗斯对乌克兰的持续侵略在全世界掀起了轩然大波。俄罗斯违反了最基本的国际法规则,大多数人直观地感觉到乌克兰战争改变了整个国际社会的格局。鉴于这显然是一个转折点,很难假设建立在 "人权、法治和民主 "基础上的全球宪政主义(被称为 "宪政三位一体")不会发生任何变化。全球立宪主义能否挺过如此艰难的时刻?这是全球宪政主义者必须解决的一个基本问题。本文对这一问题做出了肯定的回答。首先,尽管俄罗斯严重违反了国际法,但它并不一定试图退出当前的国际法框架。国际法中以个人为中心的现有要素是全球宪政主义的核心支柱,不会被任何替代品所取代。其次,即使现有的国际法框架仍然可行,但不可否认的风险是,持续的战争加速了国际法的两极分化,这将对全球立宪主义产生负面影响。这种两极分化可能会掏空国际法中的宪法三位一体。然而,全球宪政仍将继续作为国际社会的主要认知框架发挥作用,因为个人行使国际法中蕴含的权利将源源不断地为全球宪政提供能量。本文的结论是,只要国际法保持其个体要素,全球宪政主义就能在当前的世界困境下保持其规范力量。
{"title":"Dead or alive? Global constitutionalism and international law after the start of the war in Ukraine","authors":"Takao Suami","doi":"10.1017/s2045381723000369","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045381723000369","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Russia’s continued aggression against Ukraine has sent shock waves around the world. Russia has violated the most fundamental rule of international law and most people intuitively feel that the war in Ukraine has changed the entire landscape of international society. Given what is clearly a turning point, it is difficult to assume that global constitutionalism founded on ‘human rights, the rule of law and democracy’, called ‘the constitutional trinity’, will not undergo any changes. Can global constitutionalism survive such a difficult moment? This is a fundamental question that global constitutionalists must address. This article answers this question in the affirmative. First, despite its gross violations of international law, Russia is not necessarily attempting to withdraw from the current framework of international law. The existing individual-centred elements in international law, which are the central pillar of global constitutionalism, will not be replaced by any alternatives. Second, even if the existing framework of international law remains viable, there is an undeniable risk that the polarization of international law accelerated by the ongoing war will negatively affect global constitutionalism. Such polarization may hollow out the constitutional trinity in international law. However, global constitutionalism will continue to function as the principal cognitive framework for international society because the exercise of individuals’ rights embedded in international law will incessantly provide energy for global constitutionalism. This article concludes that insofar as international law keeps its individual elements, global constitutionalism will be able to retain its normative power under the present predicament in the world.","PeriodicalId":37136,"journal":{"name":"Global Constitutionalism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139005154","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Between (ir)responsibility and (in)appropriateness: Conceptualizing norm-related state behaviour in the Russian war against Ukraine 在责任与适当之间:俄罗斯对乌克兰战争中与规范相关的国家行为的概念化
Q1 Arts and Humanities Pub Date : 2023-11-08 DOI: 10.1017/s2045381723000357
Sassan Gholiagha, Mitja Sienknecht
Abstract The Russian war against Ukraine has challenged fundamental norms such as sovereignty, non-interference and the prohibition of the use of force. It has led to diverse reactions from the international community. Only very few states sided with Russia, some states remained neutral, while the vast majority condemned the attack and supported Ukraine in its right to self-defence. Thus, although there is no legal obligation, many states display behaviour that goes beyond diplomatic support. They support Ukraine financially and even deliver weapons to support Ukraine in its right to self-defence. In this article, we conceptualize different types of actors’ behaviour in world politics. We distinguish between responsible, irresponsible, appropriate, and inappropriate behaviour. We apply this typology to states’ reaction to the Russian war against Ukraine. The typology enables us to analyse the variation of the responses with reference to norms and responsibility, two core concepts of International Relations (IR) Theory and global politics. Counterintuitively as it might seem, we argue that the support of Ukraine with weapons can be categorized as responsible behaviour as it displays an over-fulfilment of the right to self-defence norm, which leads to the emergence of a new norm: the responsibility to support norm.
俄罗斯对乌克兰的战争挑战了主权、不干涉和禁止使用武力等基本准则。这引起了国际社会的不同反应。只有极少数国家站在俄罗斯一边,一些国家保持中立,而绝大多数国家谴责这次袭击,并支持乌克兰的自卫权。因此,尽管没有法律义务,但许多国家表现出超越外交支持的行为。他们在经济上支持乌克兰,甚至提供武器来支持乌克兰的自卫权。在本文中,我们概念化了世界政治中不同类型的行动者的行为。我们区分负责任、不负责任、适当和不适当的行为。我们将这种类型学应用于各国对俄罗斯对乌克兰发动战争的反应。这一类型学使我们能够根据国际关系理论和全球政治的两个核心概念——规范和责任——来分析反应的变化。我们认为,用武器支持乌克兰可以被归类为负责任的行为,因为它显示了对自卫权利规范的过度履行,这导致了一种新规范的出现:支持规范的责任。
{"title":"Between (ir)responsibility and (in)appropriateness: Conceptualizing norm-related state behaviour in the Russian war against Ukraine","authors":"Sassan Gholiagha, Mitja Sienknecht","doi":"10.1017/s2045381723000357","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045381723000357","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Russian war against Ukraine has challenged fundamental norms such as sovereignty, non-interference and the prohibition of the use of force. It has led to diverse reactions from the international community. Only very few states sided with Russia, some states remained neutral, while the vast majority condemned the attack and supported Ukraine in its right to self-defence. Thus, although there is no legal obligation, many states display behaviour that goes beyond diplomatic support. They support Ukraine financially and even deliver weapons to support Ukraine in its right to self-defence. In this article, we conceptualize different types of actors’ behaviour in world politics. We distinguish between responsible, irresponsible, appropriate, and inappropriate behaviour. We apply this typology to states’ reaction to the Russian war against Ukraine. The typology enables us to analyse the variation of the responses with reference to norms and responsibility, two core concepts of International Relations (IR) Theory and global politics. Counterintuitively as it might seem, we argue that the support of Ukraine with weapons can be categorized as responsible behaviour as it displays an over-fulfilment of the right to self-defence norm, which leads to the emergence of a new norm: the responsibility to support norm.","PeriodicalId":37136,"journal":{"name":"Global Constitutionalism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135391251","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
How do constitution-making processes fail? The case of Chile’s Constitutional Convention (2021–22) 制宪程序是如何失败的?智利制宪会议案例(2021 - 2022)
Q1 Arts and Humanities Pub Date : 2023-10-27 DOI: 10.1017/s204538172300031x
Sergio Verdugo, Luis Eugenio García-Huidobro
Abstract This introduction to the symposium ‘How do Constitution-Making Processes Fail? The Case of Chile’s Constitutional Convention (2021–22)’ situates the project in the field of constitution-making, provides context regarding the Chilean case, summarizes some possible explanations for the failure, and describes how each article contributes to the symposium as a whole.
“制宪过程是如何失败的?”《智利制宪会议案例(2021 - 2022)》将该项目置于制宪领域,提供了智利案例的背景,总结了失败的一些可能解释,并描述了每篇文章如何为整个研讨会做出贡献。
{"title":"How do constitution-making processes fail? The case of Chile’s Constitutional Convention (2021–22)","authors":"Sergio Verdugo, Luis Eugenio García-Huidobro","doi":"10.1017/s204538172300031x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s204538172300031x","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This introduction to the symposium ‘How do Constitution-Making Processes Fail? The Case of Chile’s Constitutional Convention (2021–22)’ situates the project in the field of constitution-making, provides context regarding the Chilean case, summarizes some possible explanations for the failure, and describes how each article contributes to the symposium as a whole.","PeriodicalId":37136,"journal":{"name":"Global Constitutionalism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136262124","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Utopian constitutionalism in Chile 智利的乌托邦式宪政
Q1 Arts and Humanities Pub Date : 2023-10-27 DOI: 10.1017/s2045381723000266
David Landau, Rosalind Dixon
Abstract In this article, we argue that the 2022 Chilean draft Constitution helps to articulate the distinction between a transformative constitutional project and a utopian one. Whereas a transformative project lays down markers for social change that will take time to achieve, a utopian project sets out goals that are unlikely to be achieved within any reasonable timeframe. Utopianism is a product of two relationships. The first is the internal relationship between the transformative goals laid out in a constitution and the institutional pathways through which changes will occur. The second is the external relationship between the goals in the text and the views and support of key groups. In Chile, both relationships were problematic. First, the Convention adopted a draft that was heavy on ambitious programmatic content but lacked a clear vision of how to implement it. Second, the Convention produced a draft that was supported by the ephemeral civil society groups galvanized by the 2019 protests but divorced from the vision of Chile’s parties and public opinion. Some of this was a product of the peculiar electoral context in which the Convention acted, which has already been corrected. But some of it reflects deeper tensions within transformative constitutionalism.
在本文中,我们认为2022年智利宪法草案有助于阐明变革性宪法项目与乌托邦之间的区别。一个变革性的项目为社会变革奠定了需要时间才能实现的标志,而一个乌托邦式的项目则设定了不太可能在任何合理的时间框架内实现的目标。乌托邦主义是两种关系的产物。首先是宪法中规定的变革目标与变革发生的制度途径之间的内在关系。二是文本目标与关键群体的观点和支持之间的外部关系。在智利,这两种关系都存在问题。首先,《公约》通过了一项草案,其中有大量雄心勃勃的方案内容,但缺乏如何执行的明确设想。其次,《公约》起草的草案得到了2019年抗议活动激发的昙花一现的民间社会团体的支持,但与智利政党和公众舆论的愿景脱节。其中一些是《公约》所处的特殊选举环境的产物,这种情况已经得到纠正。但其中一些反映了变革中的宪政主义内部更深层次的紧张关系。
{"title":"Utopian constitutionalism in Chile","authors":"David Landau, Rosalind Dixon","doi":"10.1017/s2045381723000266","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045381723000266","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this article, we argue that the 2022 Chilean draft Constitution helps to articulate the distinction between a transformative constitutional project and a utopian one. Whereas a transformative project lays down markers for social change that will take time to achieve, a utopian project sets out goals that are unlikely to be achieved within any reasonable timeframe. Utopianism is a product of two relationships. The first is the internal relationship between the transformative goals laid out in a constitution and the institutional pathways through which changes will occur. The second is the external relationship between the goals in the text and the views and support of key groups. In Chile, both relationships were problematic. First, the Convention adopted a draft that was heavy on ambitious programmatic content but lacked a clear vision of how to implement it. Second, the Convention produced a draft that was supported by the ephemeral civil society groups galvanized by the 2019 protests but divorced from the vision of Chile’s parties and public opinion. Some of this was a product of the peculiar electoral context in which the Convention acted, which has already been corrected. But some of it reflects deeper tensions within transformative constitutionalism.","PeriodicalId":37136,"journal":{"name":"Global Constitutionalism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136262846","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
期刊
Global Constitutionalism
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1