On the Juridification of Parliamentary Practice and Procedures

The maintenance and reform of parliamentary law increasingly focus on legal norms and the language of the courts. They are shaped by constitutional discourse and court rulings. As in other parts of public and administrative law we encounter an ever more technical and detailed approach in parliamentary law. In this way, we may counter tendencies to weaken democracy and the rule of law, integrate parliamentary procedures into administrative law and organisation and thus neutralize or disguise the political dimension of parliamentarism; or, on the other hand, alienate parliamentary procedures and proceedings from the public and from politicians who are no longer able to understand and communicate about them.

ʻJudicial Activismʼ in Europe: Not a Neat and Clean Fit

Achieving a proper balance between enforcing the constitution and avoiding that the courts exercise a policy-making function that that is better left to legislatures is not without its difficulties. In the United States, this issue has gained substantially higher traction giving rise to intense activism talk. The relevant American literature has exerted a deep fascination abroad, also in the light of the current globalization of constitutional discourse. Yet, the article intends to advance two claims: first, it warns against an uncritical import of US-style notions of judicial activism to continental Europe; second, it argues that contemporary research on comparative judicial activism currently has low explanatory utility. The first section takes a glimpse of the relevant US literature ‒ both legal and empirical ‒ to shed light on the multidimensional essence of the concept. Section 2 proceeds to articulate three sets of tentative reasons why activism talk should be ʻhandled with careʼ. These reasons pivot on considerations around structure, culture, and type of decisions in continental Europe. After parsing out each aspect, an argument is made that US-style judicial activism is too dependent on the US form of government; too divisive and as such unsuitable to the different European legal professional culture; and misleading, as the way European constitutional courts display activism in their decisions is distinctive. Ultimately, the article argues for the avoidance of US-style notions of judicial activism in European constitutional discourse.

In the Name of Cow: Legal–Constitutional Discourse and the Contours of Contemporary Indian Politics

The issue of cow preservation is predominantly seen as a battle between communal/orthodox and liberal/secular ideologies represented by Hindu nationalists and Congress, respectively. In this schema, Hindu nationalists projected themselves as protectors of cow, while Congress seemed to oppose such proposals. The question of how both regimes used cow as a significant symbol for strengthening their politics and positions for favourable political equilibrium in the past 60 years remains under-researched. The article argues that the dynamics of electoral politics in India should not merely be reduced to the ideologies of different political regimes; instead, a critical understanding of successful and timely appropriation of popular religious sensibilities needs to be explored.

The Global South and Comparative Constitutional Law

Although the Global South represents ‘most of the world’ in terms of constitutions and population, it is still underrepresented in comparative constitutional discourse. Against this background, this volume posits that it is high time for a ‘Southern turn’ in comparative constitutional scholarship. It aims to take stock of existing scholarship on the Global South and comparative constitutional law and to move the debate forward. It brings together authors who all hail from, or are based in, the Global South and who represent a range of regions, perspectives, and methodological approaches. They address the theoretical and epistemic foundations of Southern constitutionalism and discuss its distinctive themes, such as transformative constitutionalism, inequality, access to justice, and authoritarian legality. What emerges is a rich tapestry of constitutional experiences that pluralizes comparative constitutional law as discipline and field of knowledge.

The Sound of Constitutional Silence

This chapter examines four introductory dimensions of the political and constitutional discourse around cities. The first is the tremendous interest in cities throughout much of the human sciences as contrasted with the silence of public law in general, and of comparative constitutional law in particular. Next, the chapter takes a look at the dominant statist stance embedded in constitutional law, in particular as it addresses sovereignty and spatial governance of the polity. A brief account of what national constitutions actually say about cities, and more significantly what they do not is then given. Finally, the chapter turns to the tendency in political discourse on collective identity to understand the “local” almost exclusively at the national or regional levels, rather than distinguishing urban interests from those of the state. Taken together, the four angles of city constitutional (non)status examined here highlight the bewildering silence of contemporary constitutional discourse with respect to cities and urbanization, as well as the strong statist outlook embedded in national constitutional orders, effectively rendering the metropolis a constitutionally non-tenable entity.

On Constitutional Discourse 2020 and Legitimation of Russian Statehood

Shows the participation of the media in the preparation and conduct of voting on amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation on July 1, 2020. On the basis of the typology of legitimation proposed by M. Weber, legitimizing appeals of the constitutional discourse have been developed, which contribute to the formation of Russian national identity.

Ideology in Modern Russian Constitutional Practice

The article focuses on Russian constitutional ideology with overview of its historical preconditions and analysis of recent significant cases of the Russian Constitutional Court. There is a discussion of gay activist Alekseyev’s case and “foreign agents’ law” case in constitutional practice as most significant examples of positivistic way of legal reasoning. The paper argues that legal positivism through its form – legal formalism is the main ideology in the modern constitutional practice in Russia. This ideology is based on the assumption that constitutional justice can find social truth. German positivistic and Soviet Marxist views have strongly determined the modern Russian constitutional discourse.