Böcker i Comparative Constitutional Law and Policy-serien

There is great interest among scholars and practitioners about when a proposed constitution is likely to succeed. But what does it mean for a constitution to succeed? By exploring an array of constitutional histories, this book shows how ideas of constitutional success play out differently in different contexts.

With a new and comprehensive account of the South African Constitutional Court's social rights decisions, Brian Ray argues that the Court's procedural enforcement approach has had significant but underappreciated effects on law and policy, and challenges the view that a stronger substantive standard of review is necessary to realize these rights. Drawing connections between the Court's widely acclaimed early decisions and the more recent second-wave cases, Ray explains that the Court has responded to the democratic legitimacy and institutional competence concerns that consistently constrain it by developing doctrines and remedial techniques that enable activists, civil society and local communities to press directly for rights-protective policies through structured, court-managed engagement processes. Engaging with Social Rights shows how those tools could be developed to make state institutions responsive to the needs of poor communities by giving those communities and their advocates consistent access to policy-making and planning processes.

Judicial councils and other judicial self-government bodies have become a worldwide phenomenon. Democracies are increasingly turning to them to insulate the judiciary from the daily politics, enhance independence and ensure judicial accountability. This book investigates the different forms of accountability and the taxonomy of mechanisms of control to determine a best practice methodology. The author expertly provides a meticulous analysis, using over 800 case studies from the Czech and Slovak disciplinary courts from 1993 to 2010 and creates a systematic framework that can be applied to future cases.

This book is an empirical study of contributions by courts in the Global South to comparative constitutionalism. It offers an analytical framework for understanding these constitutional innovations and illustrates them with a qualitative study of the most ambitious case in constitutional adjudication in Latin America over the last decade: the Colombian Constitutional Court's structural injunction affecting the rights of over five million internally displaced people and its implementation process. Although the ruling (known as T25) was handed down in 2004, its monitoring process continues. This book traces the case's evolution from its origin to its effects on policy, politics and public opinion. It also compares the implementation and effects of T25 with those of other rulings on the rights to health, food, housing, and prison overcrowding in Colombia, India and South Africa. The study's insights will be of interest to scholars of comparative constitutionalism in Latin America, Africa and Asia.

In 2014, Japanese Prime Minister Abe Shinzo announced the expansion of Japan's war powers, challenging a constitutional precedent that had been in place for seventy years. This book examines the history of Japan and Korea's post-World War II constitution-making, in order to shed light on the countries' modern legacies.

This volume explores the social and political forces behind constitution making from a global perspective. It combines leading theoretical perspectives with in-depth case studies from nineteen countries. The result is an examination of constitutions as social phenomena and their interaction with other social phenomena, from various perspectives.

South Asia, despite being the site of the world's largest constitutional democracy, is underrepresented in comparative legal scholarship. This book remedies this lack of attention by examining constitutional law in five South Asian countries: India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Bangladesh.

This book proposes a general theory of international courts that assumes member states are free to ignore international agreements and adverse court rulings, and that the court does not have any informational advantages. It demonstrates that international courts can facilitate cooperation with international law, but only within important political constraints.