Curbing the royal prerogative to use military force: the British House of Commons and the conflicts in Libya and Syria

Abstract

To what extent does political practice under the British Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition (2010–2015) reflect a ‘parliamentary prerogative’? From a formal-institutional point of view one should not expect substantial parliamentary influence in Britain. Yet recent developments suggest the emergence of a new convention. Examining parliamentary debates during the run-up to the votes on Libya and Syria, this contribution shows that the scope and contents of this convention remain contested. Specifically, there is disagreement about the kind of operations that ought to be exempt from the rule, questions of parliamentary procedure that favour the executive and, crucially, the proper timing of substantive votes. Nonetheless, parliament has emerged from the vote on Syria as an informal veto player on decisions regarding war involvement. However, whether MPs will exercise their veto power in prospective cases will depend on the preference distribution in the legislature and the nature of the proposed deployment.     

Coloured Judgements? The Work of the Thai Constitutional Court, 1998–2016

Created in 1997 as part of a major constitutional reform, Thailand’s Constitutional Court has since become embroiled in several high-profile political controversies. Since the 2006 coup, because a number of such decisions have favoured one political camp and considering obvious close and long-standing relations between judges and political elites, questions have arisen about the court’s ability to act as an independent arbiter. Is this view justifiable? To answer that question, this article first analyses how the court has behaved across political administrations in 32 high-profile cases since 2001. It then turns to the socio-biographic profile of the bench, the politics of nominations and changes to its composition, particularly since 2006. Finally, the article considers data on participants in classes offered by the Constitutional Court, which makes it possible to better understand the links between Thai political and judicial networks. The analysis finds evidence of politically biased voting patterns and increasingly partisan nominations to the court, though formally appointment procedures are apolitical, which suggests the politicisation of the court and growing ties between judicial and political elites. These findings raise new questions about the public’s perception of the Constitutional Court’s legitimacy and prospects for the rule of law.     

刍议对公民社会权的司法救济——以南非格鲁特布姆案为视角

作为体现对公民享有人的尊严的基本生活的保护,公民的社会权已随社会的发展而相继被很多国家写进宪法。随着贫富差距的日益增大和人权观念的逐渐深入,社会权作为一种新兴的人权当然也日益被社会所重视。而如何从实体和程序上对其加以法律保障,就成为宪法学需要予以研究的问题。     

Constitutional Contestation of Religion in Sri Lanka

ABSTRACT

Sri Lanka’s constitutional policy regarding religion affords the ‘foremost place’ to Buddhism and obligates the state to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana, whilst assuring the rights and freedoms of the other religions. By explicitly creating a special status for Buddhism, the constitution has produced the category of the ‘Other’ that has the potential to discriminate against minorities in a pluralistic society and to undermine the fundamental principle of equality. The creation of this distinction generated contestation during constitutional reforms. By examining reform proposals on religion, interview material and comparing the debates of the Constitutional Assembly (October/November 2017) with the Constituent Assembly debates (1970–71), this study retraces the evolution of the Buddhism Chapter and identifies the present contestations and their role in deciding a constitutional arrangement for religion.     

德国《基本法》中的社会国家原则

从语义解释的角度看,社会国家原则在《联邦德国基本法》(以下简称《基本法》)文本中不具有显著地位,且内容不够明确;但从体系解释而言,该原则享有不得修改的宪法基本原则的突出地位。社会国家原则产生的历史则表明,该原则具有弥补《基本法》中社会基本权利缺失的功能。但社会国家的目的以及社会国家原则保障的基本权利都必须通过立法者制定的法律来加以具体化。联邦宪法法院在发挥社会国家原则的宪法规范功能以及确定社会国家的最低宪法标准方面起到了重要作用。社会国家原则在联邦宪法法院的判决中一般与基本权利条款、基本权利限制条款以及社会国家的目标一起发挥作用,被用来为立法者设定社会权利保护义务或论证限制基本权利的法律规范的正当性。     

非法证据排除规则的宪法思考——兼评我国刑事诉讼法的修改

非法证据排除规则是宪法程序的基本内容,美国宪法第5条修正案规定了不得强迫自证其罪,宪法判例据此推定出排除规则;日本等国宪法既规定了不得强迫自证其罪,也规定了排除规则;德国基本法从公权力的限制性规范推定出排除规则。排除规则排除的不是证据本身,而是公权力的违法行为,因为证据是先于程序而存在的客观实在,不能排除,也不应该排除。排除规则的价值取向可分为:单维度的价值定位和多维度的价值定位,前者在于保护犯罪嫌疑人和被告人的权利,后者还包括证人、被害人和社会大众的权利;不同维度的价值取向意味着非法证据的排除范围有别。我国宪法没有禁止强迫自证其罪和排除规则的规定,正在热议的《刑事诉讼法草案》对这两个规则作了具体规定,其意义重大,不容置疑,但也存在着实施的困难和障碍:一是与排除规则配套的司法体制、强制措施和侦查手段等有待完善;二是非法证据排除的范围和标准不确定、不具体、不合理;三是排除规则适用的例外情况没有专门规定,容易放纵公权力的恣意。     

Parental Alienation Syndrome in Spain: opposed by the Government but accepted in the Courts

ABSTRACT

For over fifteen years, Spain has seen the promulgation of feminist-inspired legal frameworks to combat male violence against women and, as a result, Spanish law contains a variety of mechanisms that target male violence. However, the parallel dissemination of the pseudo-scientific concept of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), especially since 2004, has become a tool to stall the enforcement of gender equality legislation. Specifically, PAS is causing severe harm in legal procedures related to marital breakdown. Both the government and the General Council of the Judiciary have taken a stand against the deployment of PAS in the legal system, but the notion of parental alienation is still widely used in family courts. This article analyses the contemporary significance of PAS in Spain. It grounds itself in an examination of key government reports and legal cases, and draws on qualitative survey data from interviews with 20 women who have been either formally accused, or threatened with accusations of parental alienation.     

论行政法原则的司法适用——以诚实信用和信赖保护原则为例

行政法原则在行政法中具有重要的地位,司法也应对此加以保障。行政法原则的表现各不相同,效力各异,司法在适用这些原则时应遵循不同的规则,采取不同的技术加以阐释和推理。这既是司法权的法律执行性的要求,也是与法院的宪法地位相适应的要求,更是立法对司法裁量权的一种合理的限制。     

Conceptions Of Liberty Deprivation

This article adopts a theoretical and comparative perspective on the prisoner's legal status in England and Wales. Applying the principles of human rights, legality and proportionality, it argues that the prisoner's legal status must rest on a divisible conception of liberty. Such a conception must distinguish clearly between the liberty lost, and the rights restricted, by the imposition of the custodial sentence as opposed to the administration of prisons (the key distinction). In order for this to be achieved, the conception of the prisoner's legal status must also establish the purpose or purposes of the custodial sanction as distinct from the purpose of prison administration. Through comparison with Germany, the article demonstrates that the common law concept of the prisoner's legal status is unstable. Vacillating between a divisible and indivisible conception of the prisoner's liberty, the English conception of the prisoner's legal status lacks a foundation firm enough to satisfy the principles of human rights, legality and proportionality.     

论行政权限争议的宪法解决

行政权限争议是行政机关之间法定权力的争议,该争议的合理、有效解决直接关涉公民合法权益的保障与公共利益的增长。在“依法治国”、“依宪治国”的制度框架下,通过诉讼的动态范式。以宪法的至上权威调适该领域的权力纷争乃宪政、法治的应然内涵。