Pub Date : 2022-02-22DOI: 10.1017/S2045381722000028
Jacob Eisler, Jonathan Havercroft, J. Shaw, A. Wiener, Susan Kang
Introduction At the close of the twentieth century, for political elites it was reasonable to believe that liberal democratic constitutionalism (LDC) was the ascendant political arrangement in states of the ‘Global North’ and, through colonialism, relatedly for states of the ‘Global South’. LDC was presented as not only asserting a claim to superior normative validity – undergirded by human rights, democracy and the rule of law – but also a claim to inevitability as a mode of governance. In the words of perhaps the most (in)famous articulation of this hopeful claim from its heady heyday, ‘there is now no ideology with pretentions to universality that is in a position to challenge liberal democracy’, which stands as ‘the single universal standard’.1 While this sense of inevitably had its sceptics even at LDC’s zenith,2 for a time its continued spread and ultimate triumph were not only a defensible prediction of the future, but plausibly the most convincing one. Twenty-odd years later, LDC has not only failed to become a universal mode of political organization, but its traditional bastions have themselves suffered democratic backsliding. For the past decade, the most salient form of this has been internal crisis.3 As we observed following Trump, Brexit, and a general resurgence of far-right parties across the diverse polities, ‘far right populist authoritarianism’ poses an immediate threat to LDC.4 Yet, a year after Trump’s defeat andwith the EUhaving survived Brexit in part because states central to its integrity, such as France, have – so far – resisted far right populist leadership, the norms of constitutionalism have shown a measure of robustness.5 The possibility that LDCmight
{"title":"The pendulum swings back: New authoritarian threats to liberal democratic constitutionalism","authors":"Jacob Eisler, Jonathan Havercroft, J. Shaw, A. Wiener, Susan Kang","doi":"10.1017/S2045381722000028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045381722000028","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction At the close of the twentieth century, for political elites it was reasonable to believe that liberal democratic constitutionalism (LDC) was the ascendant political arrangement in states of the ‘Global North’ and, through colonialism, relatedly for states of the ‘Global South’. LDC was presented as not only asserting a claim to superior normative validity – undergirded by human rights, democracy and the rule of law – but also a claim to inevitability as a mode of governance. In the words of perhaps the most (in)famous articulation of this hopeful claim from its heady heyday, ‘there is now no ideology with pretentions to universality that is in a position to challenge liberal democracy’, which stands as ‘the single universal standard’.1 While this sense of inevitably had its sceptics even at LDC’s zenith,2 for a time its continued spread and ultimate triumph were not only a defensible prediction of the future, but plausibly the most convincing one. Twenty-odd years later, LDC has not only failed to become a universal mode of political organization, but its traditional bastions have themselves suffered democratic backsliding. For the past decade, the most salient form of this has been internal crisis.3 As we observed following Trump, Brexit, and a general resurgence of far-right parties across the diverse polities, ‘far right populist authoritarianism’ poses an immediate threat to LDC.4 Yet, a year after Trump’s defeat andwith the EUhaving survived Brexit in part because states central to its integrity, such as France, have – so far – resisted far right populist leadership, the norms of constitutionalism have shown a measure of robustness.5 The possibility that LDCmight","PeriodicalId":37136,"journal":{"name":"Global Constitutionalism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48739385","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 : 2022-02-22DOI: 10.1017/s2045381722000090
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 1 Front matter","authors":"Jacob Eisler, Susan Kang, R. Forst, K. Kenkel, Helen Kinsella","doi":"10.1017/s2045381722000090","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045381722000090","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":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46903525","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 : 2021-10-29DOI: 10.1017/S2045381721000204
B. Perera
Abstract What is the significance of the School Strike for Climate from an international constitutional perspective? In this article, I compare the School Strike for Climate with the Hong Kong protests of 2019–20. Both these movements became necessary because of gaps in their countries’ respective domestic and international legal frameworks – what I term constitutionalism gaps. The immediate cause of each protest was how state and non-state actors exploited these constitutionalism gaps in the existing legal framework. Protests in Hong Kong were triggered by the attempt to enact an Extradition Law that threatened people’s autonomy, whereas the School Strike for Climate is a response to the failure of the state to deliver climate justice. Both these movements use similar strategies of advocacy and they have relied extensively on new technology. Based on this comparison, I argue that the School Strike for Climate promotes procedural and substantive values of constitutionalism at the international level, similar to the Hong Kong Protests at the domestic level. Through the School Strike for Climate, people seek to engage directly in the transnational legal process. In attempting to bridge the constitutionalism gap at the international level, the School Strike for Climate promotes values of global constitutionalism.
{"title":"The School Strike for Climate as people’s engagement in the transnational legal process and global constitutionalism","authors":"B. Perera","doi":"10.1017/S2045381721000204","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045381721000204","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract What is the significance of the School Strike for Climate from an international constitutional perspective? In this article, I compare the School Strike for Climate with the Hong Kong protests of 2019–20. Both these movements became necessary because of gaps in their countries’ respective domestic and international legal frameworks – what I term constitutionalism gaps. The immediate cause of each protest was how state and non-state actors exploited these constitutionalism gaps in the existing legal framework. Protests in Hong Kong were triggered by the attempt to enact an Extradition Law that threatened people’s autonomy, whereas the School Strike for Climate is a response to the failure of the state to deliver climate justice. Both these movements use similar strategies of advocacy and they have relied extensively on new technology. Based on this comparison, I argue that the School Strike for Climate promotes procedural and substantive values of constitutionalism at the international level, similar to the Hong Kong Protests at the domestic level. Through the School Strike for Climate, people seek to engage directly in the transnational legal process. In attempting to bridge the constitutionalism gap at the international level, the School Strike for Climate promotes values of global constitutionalism.","PeriodicalId":37136,"journal":{"name":"Global Constitutionalism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47306289","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 : 2021-10-04DOI: 10.1017/S2045381721000125
Alberto Coddou Mc Manus
Abstract Ius Constitutionale Commune in Latin America (ICCAL) is an academic endeavour that attempts to provide an account of the original Latin American path of transformative constitutionalism, comprising elements from national, transnational and international legal orders, and where the law is placed at the service of the normative trinity of constitutionalism, namely the rule of law, democracy and human rights. In this regard, ICCAL speaks of an Inter-American law that represents a new legal phenomenon, in a region where constitutionalist ideas have allegedly claimed new traction. In this article, I develop two main critiques that can be deemed challenges for an academic project that is still ‘under construction’, and provide an intellectual map of Latin American constitutionalism that could address these critiques and serve as a roadmap for studying potential Latin American contributions to debates around global constitutionalism.
{"title":"A critical account of Ius Constitutionale Commune in Latin America: An intellectual map of contemporary Latin American constitutionalism","authors":"Alberto Coddou Mc Manus","doi":"10.1017/S2045381721000125","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045381721000125","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Ius Constitutionale Commune in Latin America (ICCAL) is an academic endeavour that attempts to provide an account of the original Latin American path of transformative constitutionalism, comprising elements from national, transnational and international legal orders, and where the law is placed at the service of the normative trinity of constitutionalism, namely the rule of law, democracy and human rights. In this regard, ICCAL speaks of an Inter-American law that represents a new legal phenomenon, in a region where constitutionalist ideas have allegedly claimed new traction. In this article, I develop two main critiques that can be deemed challenges for an academic project that is still ‘under construction’, and provide an intellectual map of Latin American constitutionalism that could address these critiques and serve as a roadmap for studying potential Latin American contributions to debates around global constitutionalism.","PeriodicalId":37136,"journal":{"name":"Global Constitutionalism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44274520","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 : 2021-09-13DOI: 10.1017/S2045381721000162
J. O. Arowosegbe
Abstract This article revisits the legitimacy question as it touches the Nigerian 1999 Constitution, bringing to the discourse a review and application of pertinent theoretical perspectives on constitution making and constitutional legitimacy. This theoretical and pragmatic approach introduces a refreshing angle to the debate, revealing the paucity of any attempt to ascribe any legitimacy claim to a constitution with a doubtful normative claim and fraudulent attribution of its source and legitimacy to the people. The author finds the consent basis of constitutional legitimacy as most attractive to a divided state like Nigeria, and concludes by advocating the adoption of a blend of the principles of the constituent assembly and post sovereign constitution-making models for the production of a new people-driven and inclusive constitution to meet the needs of the Nigerian people.
{"title":"Revisiting the legitimacy question of the Nigerian 1999 Constitution","authors":"J. O. Arowosegbe","doi":"10.1017/S2045381721000162","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045381721000162","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article revisits the legitimacy question as it touches the Nigerian 1999 Constitution, bringing to the discourse a review and application of pertinent theoretical perspectives on constitution making and constitutional legitimacy. This theoretical and pragmatic approach introduces a refreshing angle to the debate, revealing the paucity of any attempt to ascribe any legitimacy claim to a constitution with a doubtful normative claim and fraudulent attribution of its source and legitimacy to the people. The author finds the consent basis of constitutional legitimacy as most attractive to a divided state like Nigeria, and concludes by advocating the adoption of a blend of the principles of the constituent assembly and post sovereign constitution-making models for the production of a new people-driven and inclusive constitution to meet the needs of the Nigerian people.","PeriodicalId":37136,"journal":{"name":"Global Constitutionalism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45178486","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 : 2021-07-01DOI: 10.1017/S2045381720000325
Chien-Chih Lin
Abstract In contrast with the decline of liberal constitutionalism around the world, liberal constitutionalism seems to be resilient in Taiwan. Weaving together several threads of history, law and politics, this article first argues that foreign legal education and identity concerns explain why judicial review and constitutional development more broadly in Taiwan have not only flourished but mirrored both German and American constitutional jurisprudence. Second, it maintains that the case of Taiwan poses another challenge to the concept of global constitutionalism since the number of referenced jurisdictions is quite limited.
{"title":"Global constitutionalism in Taiwan","authors":"Chien-Chih Lin","doi":"10.1017/S2045381720000325","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045381720000325","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In contrast with the decline of liberal constitutionalism around the world, liberal constitutionalism seems to be resilient in Taiwan. Weaving together several threads of history, law and politics, this article first argues that foreign legal education and identity concerns explain why judicial review and constitutional development more broadly in Taiwan have not only flourished but mirrored both German and American constitutional jurisprudence. Second, it maintains that the case of Taiwan poses another challenge to the concept of global constitutionalism since the number of referenced jurisdictions is quite limited.","PeriodicalId":37136,"journal":{"name":"Global Constitutionalism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48348425","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 : 2021-07-01DOI: 10.1017/S2045381720000210
A. Dziedzic
Abstract Studies of global constitutionalism have focused on the transnational movement of constitutional law through the citation of foreign judgments. However, little attention has been paid to the movement of constitutional judges themselves. This article considers how the foreign judges who sit on courts of constitutional jurisdiction in Pacific island states can be understood as part of the phenomenon of global constitutionalism. It identifies three ways in which foreign judges can be agents of global constitutionalism: as mechanisms for the diffusion of constitutional ideas, as expressions of global constitutional values and as objects of transnational legal transfer. An empirical analysis comparing the citation practices of local and foreign judges in constitutional cases in nine Pacific states suggests that the use of foreign judges on constitutional courts does contribute to the international movement of constitutional ideas. However, a critical analysis of foreign judges as expressions and objects of global constitutionalism sheds light on a range of tensions in the role of constitutional judges and understandings of global constitutionalism.
{"title":"Foreign judges of the Pacific as agents of global constitutionalism","authors":"A. Dziedzic","doi":"10.1017/S2045381720000210","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045381720000210","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Studies of global constitutionalism have focused on the transnational movement of constitutional law through the citation of foreign judgments. However, little attention has been paid to the movement of constitutional judges themselves. This article considers how the foreign judges who sit on courts of constitutional jurisdiction in Pacific island states can be understood as part of the phenomenon of global constitutionalism. It identifies three ways in which foreign judges can be agents of global constitutionalism: as mechanisms for the diffusion of constitutional ideas, as expressions of global constitutional values and as objects of transnational legal transfer. An empirical analysis comparing the citation practices of local and foreign judges in constitutional cases in nine Pacific states suggests that the use of foreign judges on constitutional courts does contribute to the international movement of constitutional ideas. However, a critical analysis of foreign judges as expressions and objects of global constitutionalism sheds light on a range of tensions in the role of constitutional judges and understandings of global constitutionalism.","PeriodicalId":37136,"journal":{"name":"Global Constitutionalism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45041946","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：