Pub Date : 2023-02-17DOI: 10.1017/s2045381722000272
Róisín A Costello
This article interrogates the normative coherence of the label of ‘digital constitutionalism’. In particular, I argue that the use of the label ‘constitutionalism’ in digital contexts often conflates the practical realities of existing contractual governance models with the superficial appeal of constitutional structures. As a result, the label is misleading in both normative and qualitative terms as it obscures the true nature of the governance architectures to which it is applied, which are more appropriately understood as implementing a distinct genre of ‘private policy’.
{"title":"Faux ami? Interrogating the normative coherence of ‘digital constitutionalism’","authors":"Róisín A Costello","doi":"10.1017/s2045381722000272","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045381722000272","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article interrogates the normative coherence of the label of ‘digital constitutionalism’. In particular, I argue that the use of the label ‘constitutionalism’ in digital contexts often conflates the practical realities of existing contractual governance models with the superficial appeal of constitutional structures. As a result, the label is misleading in both normative and qualitative terms as it obscures the true nature of the governance architectures to which it is applied, which are more appropriately understood as implementing a distinct genre of ‘private policy’.","PeriodicalId":37136,"journal":{"name":"Global Constitutionalism","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46490737","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}
Pub Date : 2023-02-14DOI: 10.1017/s2045381722000302
Aylin Aydin-Cakir
Criticizing the insurance theory, this article asserts that to measure post-constitutional political uncertainty, one should consider not only the power distribution among the ‘political’ actors but the power distribution among all actors involved in the constitution-making process, including the public and civil society. Comparing the constitution-making processes of the constitutions of Egypt (2012) and Tunisia (2014), this study presents the duration of the constitution-making process as an alternative measure of power distribution among all actors. The theoretical framework asserts that the long constitution-making process increases the possibility of deliberation at the public level. That will help to develop trust among polarized political actors and improve political actors’ perception of the public as a credible control and constraint mechanism. This will ensure that the incoming government will respect the newly established institutions and lead to the establishment of an independent and powerful judiciary. In the second part of the article, to test this argument, I use a large dataset that covers information on the content and design processes of 140 countries’ most recent constitutions adopted between 1945 and 2018. The empirical results indicate that as the duration of the constitution-making increases, the number of constitutional guarantees for judicial independence also increases.
{"title":"Duration of the constitution-making process as an indicator of post-constitutional political uncertainty: The insurance theory revisited","authors":"Aylin Aydin-Cakir","doi":"10.1017/s2045381722000302","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045381722000302","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Criticizing the insurance theory, this article asserts that to measure post-constitutional political uncertainty, one should consider not only the power distribution among the ‘political’ actors but the power distribution among all actors involved in the constitution-making process, including the public and civil society. Comparing the constitution-making processes of the constitutions of Egypt (2012) and Tunisia (2014), this study presents the duration of the constitution-making process as an alternative measure of power distribution among all actors. The theoretical framework asserts that the long constitution-making process increases the possibility of deliberation at the public level. That will help to develop trust among polarized political actors and improve political actors’ perception of the public as a credible control and constraint mechanism. This will ensure that the incoming government will respect the newly established institutions and lead to the establishment of an independent and powerful judiciary. In the second part of the article, to test this argument, I use a large dataset that covers information on the content and design processes of 140 countries’ most recent constitutions adopted between 1945 and 2018. The empirical results indicate that as the duration of the constitution-making increases, the number of constitutional guarantees for judicial independence also increases.","PeriodicalId":37136,"journal":{"name":"Global Constitutionalism","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48428461","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}
Pub Date : 2023-01-17DOI: 10.1017/s2045381722000223
Mariana Velasco-Rivera, Joel I Colón-Ríos
This article examines the development of the doctrine of the ‘permanent constituent power’ in Mexico. This doctrine reflects a long tradition in constitutional theory according to which the exercise of constituent power is a one-time event: once a constitution is adopted, there will be no legal mechanism in place for the exercise of the people’s original constitution-making authority. This view is nonetheless in tension with a notion that has also been historically embraced by liberal constitutionalism: that the people has an inalienable right to alter the form of government. The constitutional provisions that reflect that idea, we will see, can have important implications in terms of the nature and scope of the amending authority and, at the same time, point toward alternative mechanisms for the exercise of constituent authority. By closely examining the operation of those kinds of provisions in the Mexican constitution, we seek to illustrate a tension central to the liberal constitutional tradition and to suggest a way out of it. In so doing, we aim to draw some lessons from the Mexican case that can contribute to current discussions about constituent power and fundamental constitutional change in liberal constitutional orders.
{"title":"On the legal implications of a ‘permanent’ constituent power","authors":"Mariana Velasco-Rivera, Joel I Colón-Ríos","doi":"10.1017/s2045381722000223","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045381722000223","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article examines the development of the doctrine of the ‘permanent constituent power’ in Mexico. This doctrine reflects a long tradition in constitutional theory according to which the exercise of constituent power is a one-time event: once a constitution is adopted, there will be no legal mechanism in place for the exercise of the people’s original constitution-making authority. This view is nonetheless in tension with a notion that has also been historically embraced by liberal constitutionalism: that the people has an inalienable right to alter the form of government. The constitutional provisions that reflect that idea, we will see, can have important implications in terms of the nature and scope of the amending authority and, at the same time, point toward alternative mechanisms for the exercise of constituent authority. By closely examining the operation of those kinds of provisions in the Mexican constitution, we seek to illustrate a tension central to the liberal constitutional tradition and to suggest a way out of it. In so doing, we aim to draw some lessons from the Mexican case that can contribute to current discussions about constituent power and fundamental constitutional change in liberal constitutional orders.","PeriodicalId":37136,"journal":{"name":"Global Constitutionalism","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46419685","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}
Pub Date : 2023-01-16DOI: 10.1017/s2045381722000259
Julia Drubel, Janne Mende
The question of whether global norms are experiencing a crisis allows for two concurrent answers. From a facticity perspective, certain global norms are in crisis, given their worldwide lack of implementation and effectiveness. From a validity perspective, however, a crisis is not obvious, as these norms are not openly contested discursively and institutionally. In order to explain the double diagnosis (crisis/no crisis), this article draws on international relations research on norm contestation and norm robustness. It proposes the concept of hidden discursive contestation and distinguishes it from three other key types of norm contestation: open discursive, open non-discursive and hidden non-discursive contestation. We identify four manifestations of hidden discursive contestation in: (1) the deflection of responsibility; (2) forestalling norm strengthening; (3) displaying norms as functional means to an end; and (4) downgrading or upgrading single norm elements. Our empirical focus is on the decent work norm, which demonstrates the double diagnosis. While it lacks facticity, it enjoys far-reaching verbal acceptance and high validity. Our qualitative analysis of discursive hidden contestation draws on two case studies: the International Labour Organization’s compliance procedures, which monitor international labour standards, and the United Nations Treaty Process on a binding instrument for business and human rights. Although both fora have different context and policy cycles, they exhibit similar strategies of hidden discursive contestation.
{"title":"The hidden contestation of norms: Decent work in the International Labour Organization and the United Nations","authors":"Julia Drubel, Janne Mende","doi":"10.1017/s2045381722000259","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045381722000259","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The question of whether global norms are experiencing a crisis allows for two concurrent answers. From a facticity perspective, certain global norms are in crisis, given their worldwide lack of implementation and effectiveness. From a validity perspective, however, a crisis is not obvious, as these norms are not openly contested discursively and institutionally. In order to explain the double diagnosis (crisis/no crisis), this article draws on international relations research on norm contestation and norm robustness. It proposes the concept of hidden discursive contestation and distinguishes it from three other key types of norm contestation: open discursive, open non-discursive and hidden non-discursive contestation. We identify four manifestations of hidden discursive contestation in: (1) the deflection of responsibility; (2) forestalling norm strengthening; (3) displaying norms as functional means to an end; and (4) downgrading or upgrading single norm elements. Our empirical focus is on the decent work norm, which demonstrates the double diagnosis. While it lacks facticity, it enjoys far-reaching verbal acceptance and high validity. Our qualitative analysis of discursive hidden contestation draws on two case studies: the International Labour Organization’s compliance procedures, which monitor international labour standards, and the United Nations Treaty Process on a binding instrument for business and human rights. Although both fora have different context and policy cycles, they exhibit similar strategies of hidden discursive contestation.","PeriodicalId":37136,"journal":{"name":"Global Constitutionalism","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47974232","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}
Pub Date : 2022-12-23DOI: 10.1017/S2045381722000235
Lilach Litor
Abstract Collective labour rights, including the right to organize and strike, were recognized in the principles of the International Labour Organization (ILO) as fundamental rights. Despite their importance, different countries enacted legislation that included a ban on police organization in trade unions or a ban just on police strikes. The right of police officers to organize and strike is of particular importance nowadays at a time of increased public scrutiny and large-scale protests over incidents of extra-judicial killing by police. There is a need to recognize collective rights for police officers in order to improve working conditions and organizational justice at work for them as a way of moderating officers’ perspectives of public hostility and improving their capability to carry out their duties. Another benefit of recognizing a right to organize is the union’s capacity to advance important values, including avoiding racism and violence and assuring the compliance of individual officers with the ethics and code of conduct expected from police officers. This article seeks to address the unique topic of the linkage between the collective labour rights of police officers and varieties of constitutionalism in these critical times. It introduces two potential approaches in this regard: (1) global labour constitutionalism; and (2) militaristic labour constitutionalism. The former implements international standards set by the ILO as a basis for constitutionalism while the latter emphasizes domestic issues and the need to maintain the public order and security of citizens. The article examines the possibility of applying global labour constitutionalism as a basis for recognizing collective rights for police officers.
{"title":"Collective labour rights of police officers: Global labour constitutionalism and militaristic labour constitutionalism","authors":"Lilach Litor","doi":"10.1017/S2045381722000235","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045381722000235","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Collective labour rights, including the right to organize and strike, were recognized in the principles of the International Labour Organization (ILO) as fundamental rights. Despite their importance, different countries enacted legislation that included a ban on police organization in trade unions or a ban just on police strikes. The right of police officers to organize and strike is of particular importance nowadays at a time of increased public scrutiny and large-scale protests over incidents of extra-judicial killing by police. There is a need to recognize collective rights for police officers in order to improve working conditions and organizational justice at work for them as a way of moderating officers’ perspectives of public hostility and improving their capability to carry out their duties. Another benefit of recognizing a right to organize is the union’s capacity to advance important values, including avoiding racism and violence and assuring the compliance of individual officers with the ethics and code of conduct expected from police officers. This article seeks to address the unique topic of the linkage between the collective labour rights of police officers and varieties of constitutionalism in these critical times. It introduces two potential approaches in this regard: (1) global labour constitutionalism; and (2) militaristic labour constitutionalism. The former implements international standards set by the ILO as a basis for constitutionalism while the latter emphasizes domestic issues and the need to maintain the public order and security of citizens. The article examines the possibility of applying global labour constitutionalism as a basis for recognizing collective rights for police officers.","PeriodicalId":37136,"journal":{"name":"Global Constitutionalism","volume":"12 1","pages":"174 - 213"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48183210","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}
Pub Date : 2022-12-21DOI: 10.1017/s2045381722000260
Ioanna Pervou
This article aims to explore the new normal in lawmaking during the COVID-19 pandemic. It proves how the pandemic has affected the making of legal norms, in terms of both process and content. It argues that COVID-19 legislation is largely driven by scientific data for the sake of public health. In this context, it explains how national-decision making is influenced by expert advisory bodies that attempt to specify how public health may be preserved during a pandemic crisis. Moreover, it sheds light into the fact that law-making during the first phases of the pandemic was approved and endorsed by the populations of states, due to their fear of the unknown disease. However, as the pandemic steadily became an established truth, the public’s trust in lawmaking started to decrease. These shifts are well explained if one conceives lawmaking by expertise as a sliding scale, the ends of which are legality at one end and expertise coupled with popular acceptance at the other. This unique sliding scale depicts how COVID-19 lawmaking functioned, balancing between opposite trends.
{"title":"COVID-19: Introducing a sliding scale between legality and scientific knowledge","authors":"Ioanna Pervou","doi":"10.1017/s2045381722000260","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045381722000260","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article aims to explore the new normal in lawmaking during the COVID-19 pandemic. It proves how the pandemic has affected the making of legal norms, in terms of both process and content. It argues that COVID-19 legislation is largely driven by scientific data for the sake of public health. In this context, it explains how national-decision making is influenced by expert advisory bodies that attempt to specify how public health may be preserved during a pandemic crisis. Moreover, it sheds light into the fact that law-making during the first phases of the pandemic was approved and endorsed by the populations of states, due to their fear of the unknown disease. However, as the pandemic steadily became an established truth, the public’s trust in lawmaking started to decrease. These shifts are well explained if one conceives lawmaking by expertise as a sliding scale, the ends of which are legality at one end and expertise coupled with popular acceptance at the other. This unique sliding scale depicts how COVID-19 lawmaking functioned, balancing between opposite trends.","PeriodicalId":37136,"journal":{"name":"Global Constitutionalism","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45185592","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}
Pub Date : 2022-12-13DOI: 10.1017/s2045381722000211
C. I. Guiffré
Deliberative constitutionalism is one of the most important developments of recent decades in constitutional theory and practice. It is in this context that Cristina Lafont’s Democracy Without Shortcuts was published. Lafont’s theory provides an opportunity to advance the research agenda on deliberative constitutionalism since she offers a deliberative democratic reinterpretation of judicial review. According to this compelling and powerful idea, citizens can challenge any laws in constitutional courts and thus trigger democratic deliberation about rights. With this issue in mind, this article offers a general approach to deliberative constitutionalism, describes Lafont’s reinterpretation of judicial review, and makes explicit five tensions in this reinterpretation of judicial review vis-à-vis deliberative constitutionalism: (1) the default authority in the interim; (2) the procedural type of constitutional amendment; (3) the scope of judicial review; (4) the irrelevance of constitutional amendments; and (5) the scope of constituent power.
{"title":"Deliberative constitutionalism ‘without shortcuts’: On the deliberative potential of Cristina Lafont’s judicial review theory","authors":"C. I. Guiffré","doi":"10.1017/s2045381722000211","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045381722000211","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Deliberative constitutionalism is one of the most important developments of recent decades in constitutional theory and practice. It is in this context that Cristina Lafont’s Democracy Without Shortcuts was published. Lafont’s theory provides an opportunity to advance the research agenda on deliberative constitutionalism since she offers a deliberative democratic reinterpretation of judicial review. According to this compelling and powerful idea, citizens can challenge any laws in constitutional courts and thus trigger democratic deliberation about rights. With this issue in mind, this article offers a general approach to deliberative constitutionalism, describes Lafont’s reinterpretation of judicial review, and makes explicit five tensions in this reinterpretation of judicial review vis-à-vis deliberative constitutionalism: (1) the default authority in the interim; (2) the procedural type of constitutional amendment; (3) the scope of judicial review; (4) the irrelevance of constitutional amendments; and (5) the scope of constituent power.","PeriodicalId":37136,"journal":{"name":"Global Constitutionalism","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43928822","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}
Pub Date : 2022-11-04DOI: 10.1017/s204538172200017x
Sheri Labenski
Feminists have utilized manifestos and utopias in order to make important, often revolutionary, contributions to international law. However, these engagements have not been reflected in the substance of international law. The sources of international law – specifically customary international law – rely on a narrow understanding of historical knowledge. This article centres the 1924 manifesto and the ‘New International Order’ created by the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, as tools to assess the exclusion of the under-utilized history of feminist peace work from the sources of international law. This allows for a reflection on customary international law’s weaknesses and reaffirms the importance of feminist approaches to international law.
{"title":"‘The world is not organized for Peace’: Feminist manifestos and utopias in the making of international law","authors":"Sheri Labenski","doi":"10.1017/s204538172200017x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s204538172200017x","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Feminists have utilized manifestos and utopias in order to make important, often revolutionary, contributions to international law. However, these engagements have not been reflected in the substance of international law. The sources of international law – specifically customary international law – rely on a narrow understanding of historical knowledge. This article centres the 1924 manifesto and the ‘New International Order’ created by the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, as tools to assess the exclusion of the under-utilized history of feminist peace work from the sources of international law. This allows for a reflection on customary international law’s weaknesses and reaffirms the importance of feminist approaches to international law.","PeriodicalId":37136,"journal":{"name":"Global Constitutionalism","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42523586","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}
Pub Date : 2022-11-01DOI: 10.1017/s2045381722000247
Jacob Eisler, Susan Kang, R. Forst, K. Kenkel, Helen Kinsella
Editorial Board Mathias Albert, University of Bielefeld, Germany Richard Bellamy, University College, London, UK Duncan Bell, University of Cambridge, UK Seyla Benhabib, Yale University, USA Armin v. Bogdandy, Max Planck Institute, Heidelberg, Germany Jutta Brunnée, University of Toronto, Canada Wen-Chen Chang, National Taiwan University, Taiwan Carlos Closa, Center for Public Goods and Policies, Madrid, Spain Jean L. Cohen, Columbia University, USA Yasmin Dawood, University of Toronto, Canada Gráinne de Búrca, New York University, USA Avigail Eisenberg, University of Victoria, Canada Karin Fierke, St Andrews University, UK Ezzedine Choukri Fishere, American University of Cairo, Egypt GLOBAL CONSTITUTIONALISM
编委会Mathias Albert，德国比勒菲尔德大学Richard Bellamy，英国伦敦大学学院Duncan Bell，英国剑桥大学Seyla Benhabib，耶鲁大学，美国Armin v. Bogdandy，马克斯普朗克研究所，德国海德堡Jutta brunnsame，加拿大多伦多大学张文辰，国立台湾大学，台湾Carlos Closa，公共产品与政策中心，西班牙马德里Jean L. Cohen，哥伦比亚大学，美国Yasmin Dawood，多伦多大学加拿大Gráinne de Búrca，纽约大学，美国阿维盖尔·艾森伯格，维多利亚大学，加拿大卡琳·菲尔克，圣安德鲁斯大学，英国Ezzedine Choukri Fishere，美国开罗大学，埃及全球宪政
{"title":"GCN volume 11 issue 3 Front matter","authors":"Jacob Eisler, Susan Kang, R. Forst, K. Kenkel, Helen Kinsella","doi":"10.1017/s2045381722000247","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045381722000247","url":null,"abstract":"Editorial Board Mathias Albert, University of Bielefeld, Germany Richard Bellamy, University College, London, UK Duncan Bell, University of Cambridge, UK Seyla Benhabib, Yale University, USA Armin v. Bogdandy, Max Planck Institute, Heidelberg, Germany Jutta Brunnée, University of Toronto, Canada Wen-Chen Chang, National Taiwan University, Taiwan Carlos Closa, Center for Public Goods and Policies, Madrid, Spain Jean L. Cohen, Columbia University, USA Yasmin Dawood, University of Toronto, Canada Gráinne de Búrca, New York University, USA Avigail Eisenberg, University of Victoria, Canada Karin Fierke, St Andrews University, UK Ezzedine Choukri Fishere, American University of Cairo, Egypt GLOBAL CONSTITUTIONALISM","PeriodicalId":37136,"journal":{"name":"Global Constitutionalism","volume":" ","pages":"f1 - f2"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48545453","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}
Pub Date : 2022-11-01DOI: 10.1017/S2045381722000144
R. Sanders, L. Jenkins
Abstract In recent years, conservative governments and their civil society allies have undermined international women’s rights treaties and SOGI rights initiatives and challenged domestic rights protections. The articles in this special issue grapple with these trends by analysing the ideologies, discourses, and strategies of contemporary anti-feminism in global and comparative contexts. Several prominent patterns emerge: the core significance of social hierarchy and biological essentialism to anti-feminist conservative thought; the polarizing demonization of feminists by religious conservatives and populist nationalists; the appropriation of rights discourses and advocacy tactics by anti-feminist campaigns; and the strategic importance of law and legal language as a terrain of rights contestation. Taken together, this research suggests that anti-feminism is not incidental to reactionary anti-democratic politics, but instead a constitutive element of political movements that seek to naturalize inequality and legally enforce conformity with conservative social norms.
{"title":"Special issue introduction: Contemporary international anti-feminism","authors":"R. Sanders, L. Jenkins","doi":"10.1017/S2045381722000144","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045381722000144","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In recent years, conservative governments and their civil society allies have undermined international women’s rights treaties and SOGI rights initiatives and challenged domestic rights protections. The articles in this special issue grapple with these trends by analysing the ideologies, discourses, and strategies of contemporary anti-feminism in global and comparative contexts. Several prominent patterns emerge: the core significance of social hierarchy and biological essentialism to anti-feminist conservative thought; the polarizing demonization of feminists by religious conservatives and populist nationalists; the appropriation of rights discourses and advocacy tactics by anti-feminist campaigns; and the strategic importance of law and legal language as a terrain of rights contestation. Taken together, this research suggests that anti-feminism is not incidental to reactionary anti-democratic politics, but instead a constitutive element of political movements that seek to naturalize inequality and legally enforce conformity with conservative social norms.","PeriodicalId":37136,"journal":{"name":"Global Constitutionalism","volume":"11 1","pages":"369 - 378"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47251294","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}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：