Political Constitutionalism and the Question of Constitution‐Making

The debate on political constitutionalism has entirely neglected the constitution‐making dimension. This is probably due to the fact that constitution‐making usually brings with it undesirable outcomes such as the entrenchment of rights or structures. These outcomes do not respect reasonable disagreement among citizens because they violate the only fair system for settling disagreement: majority rule and equal voting rights. This article argues that political constitutionalists may regret the absence of any claim about constitution‐making. Either they are overlooking certain problems inherent to the electoral process that is supposed to tackle disagreement or, even worse, they are downplaying the entrenching effect of ordinary political processes by ignoring the redemptive properties of constituent power. In both cases, their claims undermine the political dimension of constitutionalism.     

Friends of the Court: The Republican Alliance and Selective Activism of the Constitutional Court of Turkey

During the past two decades, scholars have noted a global expansion of judicial power and court‐led rights revolutions. Far from leading a rights‐revolution, the Constitutional Court of Turkey became renowned for its restrictive take on civil liberties during this period. Why are some high courts more activist than others in protecting and expanding civil rights and liberties? I argue that judicial power and judicial independence offer incomplete explanations of judicial activism on questions of rights. Even powerful courts are activist only selectively, using their clout to protect some groups while suppressing the demands of others. Building on perspectives on legal mobilization and judicial entrenchment, I argue that the sociopolitical alliances in which high courts and judiciaries participate explain the selective nature of their activism. The initial parameters of these alliances are set during critical junctures when formerly dominant coalitions are displaced and new institutions entrench new alliances. Such alliances are not static, however, and struggles within alliances can transform high courts' orientations on rights questions.     

The Political Origins of Judicial Empowerment through Constitutionalization: Lessons from Four Constitutional Revolutions

Drawing upon an analysis of the political vectors behind constitutional reform in Israel (1992), Canada (1982) New Zealand (1990), and South Africa (1993), the article suggests that the trend toward constitutionalization in culturally divided polities has not been adequately delineated by extant theories of constitutional transformation. An examination of the political origins of these four constitutional revolutions suggests that judicial empowerment is in many cases the consequence of a conscious strategy undertaken by threatened political and economic elites seeking to preserve their hegemony vis-a-vis the growing influence of "peripheral" groups in crucial majoritarian policymaking arenas. In response to perceived threats by peripheral groups, elites who possess disproportionate access to and influence upon the legal arena often initiate a constitutional entrenchment of rights in order to insulate policymaking from popular political pressure. Power is transferred from majoritarian decision-making arenas to national high courts, where they assume their policy preferences will find greater support. This process of conscious judicial empowerment is likely to occur (a) when the judiciary's public reputation for political impartiality and rectitude is relatively high and (b) when the courts are likely to rule, by and large, in accordance with the cultural propensities and policy preferences of the traditionally hegemonic elites.     

Cohabitation in Twentieth Century England and Wales: Law and Policy

This article reviews the complex, and sometimes conflicting, policies adopted by the law of England and Wales over the course of the twentieth century. Its aim is to highlight the fact that cohabitation is not merely a modern legal issue, but one with which both the legislature and the courts have had to grapple for decades. It argues that reform has been piecemeal and context-specific because the courts and legislature have not adopted a coherent policy toward cohabiting relationships.     

Judicial Culture and the Politicolegal Opportunity Structure: Explaining Bill of Rights Legal Impact in New Zealand

This article argues that the cultural self-understandings of the judiciary can exert a profound effect on legal outcomes under a bill of rights. Utilizing the case of New Zealand, it demonstrates that confinement of expansive case law under the New Zealand Bill of Rights (NZBOR) to the criminal law and freedom of expression arenas is most significantly explained by a British-descended judicial culture that prioritizes, first, those civil liberty values already cognizable by the common law and, second, rights connected with the policing of parliamentary and legal processes. Nevertheless, judicial culture does not operate in a vacuum. Rather, the opportunity structure facing potential public interest litigants under NZBOR depends also on their politicolegal resource set including the attitude of the political branches (legislature and executive) to the claim being forwarded.     

Human Dignity and Socio-Economic Rights

The South African Constitution numbers among a very few constitutions around the world which include justiciable socio-economic rights. One of the controversies surrounding judicial enforcement of such rights is the extent to which it is appropriate for courts to engage in policy choices in relation to the use of state resources in light of the doctrine of the separation of powers. The South African Constitutional Court has responded by developing an approach to adjudication of socio-economic rights in which the role of the court is to determine the reasonableness or otherwise of measures taken by the legislature and executive to implement such rights. However, the South African Constitution is also notable for its identification of human dignity as an underlying value and the explicit duty placed on the courts to interpret the rights protected under the Bill of Rights in conformity with this value. This article scrutinises the socio-economic rights jurisprudence of the South African Constitutional court in light of the Constitutional commitment to human dignity. It questions whether reasonableness review in socio-economic cases successfully balances human dignity with the appropriate degree of deference to the legislature and executive, in compliance with the doctrine of the separation of powers.     

The Persistent Significance of Jurisdiction*

According to Joseph Raz's sources thesis, the existence and content of authoritative directives must be identifiable by resort to the social fact of their provenance from a de facto authority, without regard to any of the normative considerations that the authority in question is supposed to rely on in its judgment. This article argues that the sources thesis fails to account for the role of jurisdictional considerations (namely, considerations about the scope of a de facto authority's power) in the identification of valid law. It examines a legal system with a legislature and courts and a practice of constitutional review of legislation by the courts for its conformity with fundamental rights and argues that the special normative status of (at least some) authoritative directives in this legal system depends on respect for jurisdiction. An assessment of whether an authority has stayed intra vires involves recourse to the normative considerations that it is the authority's job to weigh up. This criticism of the sources thesis highlights the importance of incorporating jurisdiction into our philosophical accounts of legal authority.     

Police accountability and the Irish law of evidence

Common law courts have differed on whether and to what extent an exclusionary rule should be used as a tool to impose standards on the police. The Irish courts have pursued an uncompromising approach in this area. Basing themselves on the imperative of upholding the constitutional rights of the accused, they have been willing to exclude relevant and cogent evidence on the basis that it was obtained by the police in breach of those rights. This article locates the Irish constitutional exclusionary rule in the broader context of the role of the law of evidence in police governance. Citing specific examples from the Irish legislation and case law, it shows how recent legislative interventions and some judicial hesitancy have fuelled inconsistent and contradictory trends. It concludes that there is now a pressing need for reflection on the respective roles of the legislature and the courts in this area.     

法律中的语言游戏与权力分配

既然法律是对社会资源进行合理配置的一种手段,那么表达法律的语言就足实现这一目标的工具。立法者通过语言,确立了社会资源的分配原则,而语言所表征的分配方式本身,证明着规范的正当性。但是,立法者通过语言对社会权力所做的分配不可能终局性地完成,这一任务必须向后延伸到司法过程中。司法者通过对个案中具体权利的决断与平衡,将立法者对社会权力所做的初次分配现实化、具体化、个别化。所以说,法之正义是由立法者和司法者共同缔造的,在立法者和司法者那里,语言本身都是一种权力。     

Territory,Jurisdiction, and Colonial Governance: ‘A Bill to Repeal the British Constitution’, 1856–60

Britain claimed full territorial sovereignty over New Zealand, even though substantive enforcement of its authority against Maori often faced significant challenges. Alarmed at the weakness of British governance in relation to Maori, Governor Thomas Gore Browne proposed a Native Offenders Bill. The Bill proposed giving the New Zealand Governor sweeping powers to ban ‘any communication’ or trade with any Maori within a specified district, or with a particular tribe. Such a ban would, it was claimed, ensure compliance with colonial law. However, the bill was twice rejected by the settler legislature (1856 and 1860), on both constitutional and practical grounds. The paper places the bill in its political and legal contexts, and examines some of the ways colonial administrators and politicians responded to the difference between the government's claim to extensive legal authority and its more limited substantive power.     

Judicial Activism in Perilous Times: The Turkish Case

Under what circumstances do courts act in ways that challenge the political hegemony of the military in countries with weak democratic institutions? This article addresses this question by focusing on a critical case of judicial activism in Turkey. It argues that lower courts unexpectedly can be centers of judicial activism that contributes to expansion of civil liberties and restrictions on arbitrary state power when the high judiciary supports the political status quo. This is because lower courts provide greater access to legal mobilization pursued by civil society actors. At the same time, judicial activism in lower courts is sustainable only when political power is distributed among elites with conflicting interests, and the civilian government offers support and protection to activist members of the judiciary.     

环境权新探

环境权是一项基本人权,无需许可,不能剥夺,不可让渡,而环境开发利用权属于一种财产性权利,通常需经许可而取得,其行使须遵循特定程序,因此环境开发利用权不属于环境权的内容。由于后代人具有范围和时间上的不确定性,不宜将后代人纳入环境权的主体范围,但视后代人环境权利为一种道德权利则是可取的。同时环境权利与环境义务在环境法律关系中的错位以及权利与义务在主体间分配的不均衡性表明环境权不能既是权利又是义务,环境权主体并非环境权利和环境义务的统一体。     

Constitutional Directives: Morally‐Committed Political Constitutionalism

About 37 state constitutions around the world feature non‐justiciable thick moral commitments (‘constitutional directives’). These directives typically oblige the state to redistribute income and wealth, guarantee social minimums, or forge a religious or secular identity for the state. They have largely been ignored in a constitutional scholarship defined by its obsession with the legitimacy of judicial review and hostility to constitutionalising thick moral commitments other than basic rights. This article presents constitutional directives as obligatory telic norms, addressed primarily to the political state, which constitutionalise thick moral objectives. Their full realisation—through increasingly sophisticated mechanisms designed to ensure their political enforcement—is deferred to a future date. They are weakly contrajudicative in that these duties are not directly enforced by courts. Functionally, they help shape the discourse over a state's constitutional identity, and regulate its political and judicial organs. Properly understood, they are a key tool to realise a morally‐committed conception of political constitutionalism.     

论票据质押的权利担保与物的担保的二元性

票据作为有价证券,其基本属性应当是票据这张纸和权利的结合。在票据质押中,我们不能只关注票据所表彰的权利的质押,而忽视票据本身作为物的质押担保。作为提示性证券,票据权利脱离了证券的载体物,将对票据权利的行使带来困难。     

我国地方立法权扩张的政治后果分析

本文以建国以来中央——地方立法权限演变的历史说明地方立法存在的必要性。认为市场化发展和民主化改革是地方立法权扩张的动力,并以事实和数据剖析了我国地方立法发展的现状,从社会影响角度分析了地方立法权限扩张的政治后果,从保证中央立法权威、党政关系以及国家在经济发展中的作用三个方面论证了目前我国立法分权的发展还不能影响到国家的单一制结构形式,因此,应将注意力从关注"到底放不放立法权"的问题转向"如何放好地方立法权"的问题。     

Authority,Self-Determination,and Community in Cosmopolitan War

This paper examines Cécile Fabre’s cosmopolitan reductionist approach to war. It makes three main points. First, I show that Fabre must ‘thin down’ justice’s content in order to justify the cosmopolitan claim that the same rights and duties bind people everywhere. Second, I investigate Fabre’s account of the values at stake in national sovereignty and territorial integrity. Can cosmopolitanism explain why it is permissible to fight in defense of one’s political community? I doubt it. I argue that Fabre’s reductionist approach cannot justify national self-defense in many cases. Finally, I explore the role that authoritative institutions play in specifying the rights and duties we have under cosmopolitan justice. I believe Fabre takes an overly simple view of the relationship between rights, duties, and authoritative institutions. A more complex account may leave less space for private war on the part of individuals than she does.     

Basic Social Rights, Constitutional Justice, and Democracy

Abstract.   The theory of rights is crucial as a means of relieving the tension between basic rights and democracy, and as a means of resolving the problem of allocating competence between the constitutional court and the legislature. To some theorists, no tension between basic rights and democracy exists, for the latter presupposes the former. To others, among whom I include myself, tension does exist, for basic rights, in lending protection to certain persons and groups, limit the possibilities of political decision. In this connection it is important to take up the problem of the necessary conditions for realizing basic rights. One of these conditions concerns the delimiting of the scope of institutional action that is found, so to speak, in the space between the constitutional justices and the legislature, the latter as representative of the popular will.     

Problems with the Human Rights Act 1998 and How to Remedy Them: Is a Bill of Rights the Answer?

Recently there has been much discussion of the prospect of replacing, or supplementing, the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) with a British bill of rights. The Government, opposition Conservative Party and others have published detailed plans and research reports. Whilst there has been some limited examination of the alleged failures of the HRA in providing effective legal protection for human rights, the debate has not been accompanied by a thorough examination of these types of problems with the HRA, free from political criticisms. Drawing on research concerning aspects of the HRA carried out over the past ten years, it is possible to identify concrete problems which have prevented the HRA from meeting the objectives originally set for it. But given the limitations of the present debate, future plans do not adequately address many of these problems making it uncertain how effective any new bill of rights will actually be.     

论检察机关对国家经济监管权的监督

随着“市场失灵”的出现,各国均积极履行经济监管职能,保障经济平稳运行。然而,国家经济监管权同样存在着怠行与滥用的问题,无法彰显市场与政府的良性互动。在“议行合一”的政治架构下,法律监督权作为一项独立的外部权力,应肩担防范国家经济监管权异化的重任。这是市场秩序的需要,也是分权制衡的依归,更是检察制度历史演进的使然。检察监督的路径就是加强抽象监管行为的监督,防止监管法规命令腐败,并以检察建议权、行政公诉分别监督具体监管行为的合理性与合法性。最后,以职务犯罪侦查权监督监管人员的职务行为。