scholarly journals Encuesta: el método comparado en Derecho constitucional

2018 ◽  
pp. 15
Author(s):  
Benito Aláez Corral ◽  
Francisco Balaguer Callejón ◽  
Raul Canosa Usera ◽  
María Jesús García Morales ◽  
Javier García Roca ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Comparative Method ◽  
Present Situation ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Comparative Constitutional Law ◽  
Law Professors

En esta encuesta un grupo de Catedráticos de Derecho Constitucional contestan un conjunto de preguntas sobre el uso del método comparado en el derecho constitucional español, y sobre la influencia de modelos o referentes extranjeros durante el proceso constituyente, en la actividad legislativa y en la del Tribunal Constitucional, así como también algunas preguntas sobre los estudios de derecho constitucional comparado.In this academic survey a group of Constitutional Law Professors answer some questions about the role of the comparative method in the Spanish constitutional law, and the influence of foreign models in the constitutional process, the legislator and the Constitutional Court, as well as about the present situation of comparative constitutional law studies.

Introduction

2021 ◽  
pp. 3-30
Author(s):  
Alejandro Linares-Cantillo
Keyword(s):  
Transitional Justice ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Constitutional Amendments ◽  
Leading Role ◽  
Comparative Constitutional Law ◽  
The Republic

This introductory chapter provides an overview of the twenty essays compiled for the XIII conference of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Colombia, which was held in Bogota in January of 2019. The collection is divided into three thematic parts which illustrate five subjects at the spotlight of comparative constitutional law, in light of the growing circulation and intensification of the idea of constitutionalism. The first part examines the evolving and leading role of constitutional courts in constitutional democracies. The second part allows constitutional experiences speak for themselves and discusses tensions and debates in three topics: (A) the growing trend to judicially enforce 'constitutional unamendability' under the doctrine of 'unconstitutional constitutional amendments'; (B) the idea of 'transformative constitutionalism' in the area of social rights enforcement; and (C) the models of transitional justice and their implementation in the Colombian case. Finally, the third part analyses vertical and horizontal movements of constitutional law doctrines and decisions.

Kelsen versus Schmitt and the Role of the Sub-National Entities and Minorities in the Appointment of Constitutional Judges in Continental Systems

ICL Journal ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 523-543
Author(s):  
Antoni Abat Ninet
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
The Third ◽  
Comparative Constitutional Law ◽  
Constitutional Justice ◽  
The Guardian

Abstract In composed and decentralised states, sub-national entities and (ethnic, linguistic, racial) minorities ought to play a determinant role in the process of appointment of constitutional courts justices to obtain a balanced representation in the guardian of the constitution. The necessary appearance of constitutional justice independence can be at stake without a proportionated participation of minorities and sub-national entities in the court. It is not enough to introduce a symbolic presence. The first section of this essay analyses the transcendence and political-legal significance that the system of appointment of constitutional court judges has and its relation to the separation of powers (horizontal and vertical). The second section is a return to the roots, ie the system of appointment the Austrian Constitution of 1920, even that first constitutional court was created in 1919, and Kelsen’s theory on federalism. The third section carries out an analysis from a comparative constitutional law perspective by using as an analytical basis the reports on the composition of the Constitutional Courts of the European Commission for Democracy through Law. The paper ends with a reflection on Schmitt considerations on the Guardians of Constitutions.

scholarly journals Encuesta sobre el TJUE como actor de constitucionalidad

2017 ◽  
pp. 13
Author(s):  
Francisco Balaguer Callejón ◽  
Rafael Bustos Gisbert ◽  
Ascensión Elvira Perales ◽  
José Martín y Pérez de Nanclares ◽  
Javier Matía Portilla ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constitutional Order ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Law Professors

 En esta encuesta un grupo de Catedráticos de Derecho Constitucional contestan un conjunto de preguntas sobre el rol del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea como actor de la constitucionalidad, especialmente en los casos en los que un Tribunal Constitucional nacional presenta una cuestión prejudicial ante el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea, y las consecuencias que ello trae consigo en el orden constitucional tradicionalmente vinculado al Estado nacional soberano.In this academic survey a group of Constitutional Law Professors answer some questions about the role of the European Court of Justice as a constitutional actor, especially when a national constitutional court raises a preliminary ruling before the Court of Justice of the European Union, and its consequences in the traditional constitutional order.

Constitutional Democracy and Electoral Commissions: A Reflection from Asia

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Rosalind Dixon ◽  
Mark Tushnet
Keyword(s):  
Sri Lanka ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Global South ◽  
Constitutional Democracy ◽  
Comparative Constitutional Law

This symposium explores the role of “fourth branch” institutions, and specifically the role of independent electoral commissions (IECs) in protecting and promoting constitutional democracy. It does so by focusing on the global South, and Asia in particular. It aims to go beyond the “usual suspects” in comparative constitutional law, and put the constitutional experiences of countries such as Indonesia, Kenya, Myanmar, Malaysia, and Sri Lanka at the centre of a decolonized constitutional project and understanding, supplementing them with an examination of more-often-studied systems such as Australia and India.

Is it the Right Revolution? On Tushnet's The Rights Revolution in The Twentieth Century

2009 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 483-494 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rivka Weill
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Legal History ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
Recent Book ◽  
Legal Studies ◽  
Comparative Constitutional Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Law Professors ◽  
Alon Harel

This is yet another manuscript by one of the most interesting and prolific American constitutional law professors that the Critical Legal Studies movement has produced. Mark Tushnet has written extensively and influentially in the fields of both American and comparative constitutional law. He is a known expert on twentieth century American legal history, bringing this expertise to bear in writing his ambitious and most recent book, The Rights Revolution in the Twentieth Century.This review of an early draft of the book will consist of three parts. The first portrays Tushnet's descriptive enterprise in a nutshell. The second discusses the historical dimensions of Tushnet's work. The last evaluates its contribution to legal theory along the lines suggested by Alon Harel.

scholarly journals Peran Ahli Hukum dalam Persidangan Mahkamah Konstitusi

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 740
Author(s):  
Bisariyadi Bisariyadi
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Expert Opinion ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Expert’S Opinion

Mahkamah Konstitusi kerap membuka persidangan dengan agenda mendengar keterangan ahli hukum sebagai bagian dari pembuktian. Hal ini menjadi sebuah kelaziman yang dipraktekkan tanpa adanya kritisi. Keberadaan ahli hukum dalam sebuah forum yang dipimpin oleh majelis hakim yang dianggap memenuhi persyaratan akan penguasaan isu konstitusi dan ketatanegaraan, secara tersirat, berarti mempertanyakan kualifikasi dari hakim konstitusi itu sendiri. Tulisan ini bermaksud mencari tahu mengapa praktek mendengar keterangan ahli hukum dalam persidangan Mahkamah Konstitusi dilakukan. Selain itu, tulisan ini juga bermaksud untuk memberi masukan dalam hukum acara agar peran ahli hukum yang didengar keterangannya tidak memasuki ranah wewenang majelis hakim dalam menafsirkan konstitusi. Dalam rangka mencapai tujuan penulisan, pembahasan dalam tulisan ini dibagi dalam empat bagian yaitu (i) mengidentifikasi kriteria siapa yang disebut sebagai ahli; (ii) melihat kedudukan keterangan ahli sebagai alat bukti dan bagaimana majelis hakim menilai alat bukti tersebut; (iii) menelisik pengaruh keterangan ahli dalam pengambilan putusan oleh majelis hakim konstitusi dalam praktek selama ini, dan (iv) mengukur apakah keterangan ahli hukum masih dibutuhkan dalam proses persidangan di Mahkamah Konstitusi.      The Constitutional Court has often heard the opinion of legal experts as part of the examination of evidence. This is a common practice that was taken for granted. The very notion of having legal experts opinion in a forum led by judges who considered tohave  meet the qualification to be an experts in constitutional law is implicitly, means questioning the experties of the constitutional judges itselves. This paper intends to find out why the practice of hearing the legal experts opinion in the trial of the Constitutional Court still occurs. In addition, this paper also intends to provide input in the procedural law so that the role of legal experts does not enter the domain of the judges in interpreting the constitution. In order to achieve the objectives, the discussion in this paper is divided into four parts, (i) identifying the criteria of who is qualified as an expert; (ii) assess  the position of expert's opinion as evidence and how the panel of judges evaluate the evidence; (iii) examine the influence of expert opinion in decision making, and (iv) measure whether legal experts opinion is still necessary in the trial of the Constitutional Court.

Diffuse Constitutionality Review in Germany

2020 ◽  
pp. 243-258
Author(s):  
Mathias Möschel
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
The Past ◽  
Comparative Constitutional Law ◽  
West Berlin ◽  
German Model ◽  
German Constitution

This contribution analyses the cases in which ordinary German judges have annulled statutes for being unconstitutional and thus exercise what is also known as ‘diffuse constitutionality review’. In the past, this used to be the case under the Weimar Constitution and in West Berlin. However, what is less known is that even today, certain statutes that are deemed to be pre-constitutional or certain legislative provisions from the former GDR can be declared as conflicting with the German Constitution. This contribution argues that such diffuse constitutionality review might also have contributed to a further strengthening of the rule of law in Germany. Ultimately, from a comparative constitutional law perspective, this contribution also provides a more nuanced view of the German model of constitutionality review, which has been traditionally classified as belonging to the centralized ‘European’ or ‘Kelsenian’ model, with a specific constitutional court, the Bundesverfassungsgericht, having the monopoly over such review.

scholarly journals Ukrainian Constitutional Court: Attacks and Backlash

2021 ◽  
pp. 27-50
Author(s):  
Samuel Fonteles
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Public Confidence ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Tolerance Interval ◽  
National Agency ◽  
Comparative Constitutional Law ◽  
The World ◽  
Corruption Prevention ◽  
The Impact

This article intends to analyze Ukraine’s Constitutional Court in the light of the tolerance interval theory and the backlash thesis, through a case study, which is, the decision issued on October 27, 2020, that held unconstitutional part of the powers of the National Agency for the Corruption Prevention (NAPC). Three comorbidities — particular conditions that weaken the court and render it vulnerable to attacks — in the Ukrainian system are presented: Ukrainian democracy, autocracies tendencies in the presidency, and lack of public confidence in the judicial system. Through the adoption of a Comparative Constitutional Law approach, an index measuring the impact of the ruling is developed and calculated, allowing a comparison of the consequences to other notable controversial rulings in the world. After discussing the findings, the article concludes with some reflections and predictions on the longevity of the Ukrainian Constitutional Court.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document