Thesis and antithesis: To check or not to check the Judiciary

Author(s):  
Cristina E. Parau

This chapter analyses Network Community discourses in order to better expose the causal role of its hegemonic norms. Key assumptions held by the Community about the qualities of their agenda are brought to light. Classical Anglo-Saxon conceptions of the separation of powers, checks and balances, judicial independence, and the rule of law, the utility of which has stood the test of time, are compared to the theory and practice of the Network Community’s Judiciary institutional design Template. The Network conceives of the separation of powers, checks and balances, judicial independence, and the rule of law as emanating from the autonomy and supremacy of a Judiciary so empowered as invariably to subordinate all other contestants in case of conflict with itself over constitutional meaning. The chapter ends with a systematic catalogue and critical examination of those few acts of state which the Network Community conceive as legitimate checks and balances on their Judiciary design.

Author(s):  
Neil MacCormick

This lecture discusses judicial independence. It notes that the increase in concern over judicial independence was due to recent developments in Scotland, England and Wales. The constitutional changes also led to new relationships between ministers and judges, which in turn has led to governmental declarations to respect the rule of law and judicial independence. The lecture also stresses the importance of considering and re-asserting the principles that justify judicial independence, as well as the underlying concept of separation of powers.


Author(s):  
Glosemeyer Iris ◽  
Shamiri Najib Abdul-Rehman ◽  
Würth Anna

This chapter examines constitutional developments in Yemen. It covers Yemeni constitutional history before unification, the fate of the 1991 Constitution, and the Constitution of 2001. It argues that despite the relative political continuity (in the sense that there have not been successful military coups or significant elite changes in decades), constitutionalism in the country may be characterized as being two-fold. First, numerous constitutional articles are ambiguous and amenable to adverse interpretations because they leave too much of the constitutional rights to be defined by laws, thereby undermining the effectiveness of the said articles. The same applies to ordinary parliamentary laws, for they refer many important details to executive regulations, by-laws, ministerial resolutions, or Islamic jurisprudence. Second, while there has been a tradition of constitutionalist thinking at least since the 1940s, central elements of constitutionalism are missing. Checks and balances are weak, and the rule of law is far from being reality. Separation of powers is not even constitutionally fully guaranteed, much less applied in practice.


Author(s):  
Charles Manga Fombad

One reason why dictatorships flourished in Africa until the 1990s was that constitutions concentrated excessive powers in presidents. The democratic revival of the 1990s led to the introduction of new or substantially revised constitutions in a number of countries that for the first time sought to promote constitutionalism, good governance, and respect for the rule of law. A key innovation was the introduction of provisions providing for separation of powers. However, in many cases the reintroduction of multipartyism did not lead to thorough constitutional reform, setting the scene for a subsequent struggle between opposition parties, civil society, and the government, over the rule of law. This reflects the complex politics of constitutionalism in Africa over the last 60 years. In this context, it is important to note that most of the constitutions introduced at independence had provided for some degree of separation of powers, but the provisions relating to this were often vaguely worded and quickly undermined. Despite this, the doctrine of separation of powers has a long history, and the abundant literature on it shows that there is no general agreement on what it means or what its contemporary relevance is. Of the three main models of separation of powers, the American one, which comes closest to a “pure” system of separation of powers, and the British, which involves an extensive fusion of powers, have influenced developments in anglophone Africa. The French model, which combines elements of the British and American models but in which the executive predominates over the other two branches, has influenced developments in all civilian jurisdictions in Africa, particularly those in francophone Africa. The common denominator among the models is the desire to prevent tyrannical and arbitrary government by separating powers but doing so in a manner that allows for limited interference through checks and balances on the principle that le pouvoir arrête le pouvoir. The combined Anglo-American (common law) and French (civil law) models received during the colonial period remain applicable today, but despite its adoption in the 1990s, the effectiveness of the doctrine of separation of powers in limiting governmental abuse has been curtailed by the excessive powers African presidents still enjoy and the control they exercise over dominant parties in legislatures. South Africa in its 1996 Constitution, followed by Kenya in 2010 and Zimbabwe in 2013, entrenched a number of hybrid institutions of accountability that have the potential not only to complement the checks and balances provided by the traditional triad but also to act where it is unable or unwilling to do so. The advent of these institutions has given the doctrine of separation of powers renewed potency and relevance in advancing Africa’s faltering constitutionalism project.


2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 98
Author(s):  
Ebad Rouhi ◽  
Leila Raisi Dezaki ◽  
Mahmoud Jalali Karveh

The rule of law is one of the very polemical and controversial concepts in the field of public law and political thoughts. This concept has been acclaimed in both international and domestic level and can be observed in the practice of the United Nations and many of states practically. In the light of the principle of the rule of law at the meantime ruling by law can be strengthened and also security and peace, development, democracy and human rights can be protected and promoted. The rule of law and human rights as two concepts with mutually interacting to each other has noteworthy great importance. An independent and impartial judiciary such as linkage has an important role in strengthening both of them.Human rights, separation of powers and judicial independence are regarded as some basis of the rule of law and as well as its consequence. Thus, in this regard rule of law has p very guidelines and indicators which some of them related to the judicial systems of states. In the light of exercise of these guidelines human rights are better protected and promoted.These instructions and guidelines generally are provided in international and regional human rights instruments to enforce in every sector of the state and especially for judges and judicial power to protection and promotion of human rights. This article investigates the relationship between rule of law and judicial system to introduce some measures and indicators of the rule of law to enforce them in the judiciary for better protection and promotion of human rights.


2020 ◽  
pp. 3-34
Author(s):  
Scott Slorach ◽  
Judith Embley ◽  
Peter Goodchild ◽  
Catherine Shephard

This chapter considers law as a concept and in its context. It examines key legal concepts such as law and morality, jurisprudence, the legitimacy of laws, the rule of law, and the separation of powers, looking at these in both theory and practice. It includes consideration of the virtue, duty, and consequentialist ethical theories, and legal theories including natural law, legal positivism, realism, and critical legal studies.


2018 ◽  
pp. 63-104
Author(s):  
Harish Narasappa

In the first part, the interpretation and application of the rule of law by Indian courts, primarily the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court of India is analysed. A review of the major principles laid down by the Supreme Court in relation to equality and liberty is followed by a critical examination of the innovative jurisprudence developed by the Court while interpreting Article 21. The principles of judicial independence, separation of powers, and evolution of the basic structure doctrine, as well as their relationship with the rule of law is critically evaluated. In the second part the political understanding of the rule of law is examined, particularly focusing on Nehru’s comment that the rule of law should follow the ‘rule of life’ and its meaning and continued impact on lawmaking. The chapter concludes by identifying four broad themes of the Rule of Law in India.


Author(s):  
Newman Warren J

This chapter considers the meaning, scope, and application of three constitutional principles of surpassing importance in Canada. The rule of law is foundational to Canada’s constitutional framework and may properly be characterized as the first principle of Canadian constitutional law. It is linked to, and in some respects, forms the underpinning for other fundamental principles, including constitutionalism, federalism, democracy, and parliamentary sovereignty. As the latter principles are the focus of chapters by other commentators in this Handbook, this chapter will examine the rule of law primarily in relation to the separation of powers and judicial independence. The principle of judicial independence is also essential to the functioning and structure of the Constitution, given the role the courts are called upon to play in policing the constitutional limits of legislative power and administrative action. The separation of powers is still an emerging principle in Canada, but also increasingly viewed as fundamental.


2001 ◽  
Vol 35 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 481-523 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eli M. Salzberger

Judicial independence is regarded as an essential condition for the rule of law and separation of powers — two pillars of liberal democracy. Judicial independence ought to include components to secure independence on the individual level, as well as components to secure independence on the institutional level of courts. The most important objects of judicial independence are the other branches of government, but some degree of independence from the general public and from other judges is required as well. These features of independence can be achieved by rigid and entrenched arrangements regarding tenure, immunity from wage decrease, special procedures for appointment and promotion of judges, mechanisms for the allocation of cases to judges and the composition of the benches, and more.


2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 45-54
Author(s):  
Hillary Nye

The concepts of the rule of law, the separation of powers, and checks and balances are related in complicated ways. Jacob T Levy brings this to light in his thought-provoking McDonald Lecture, “The Separation of Powers and the Challenge to Constitutional Democracy.”1 In this response to Levy’s paper I want to further explore the relationship between these three ideas. I will argue that, when thinking about the rule of law, we must consider the idea of “role morality” and its place in constraining power. We should think of the constraints on power that stem from role morality as “internal” as opposed to “external” checks on power. I also suggest that we would do well to broaden our understanding of what the rule of law requires, and to think of it not just as a matter of ensuring impartiality and formal legal equality in the sense that the law applies to all actors within the system. We might benefit from thinking of the rule of law as a weightier moral concept that demands that decision-makers comply with moral ideals, and not just with the rules as laid out.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document