Suchergebnisse

AbstractAlthough scholars have made considerable progress on a number of important research questions by relaxing assumptions commonly used to divide political science into subfields, rigid boundaries remain in some contexts. In this essay, we suggest that the assumption that international politics is characterized by anarchy whereas domestic politics is characterized by hierarchy continues to divide research on the conditions under which governments are constrained by courts, international or domestic. We contend that we will learn more about the process by which courts constrain governments, and do so more quickly, if we relax the assumption and recognize the substantial similarities between domestic and international research on this topic. We review four recent books that highlight contemporary theories of the extent to which domestic and international law binds states, and discuss whether a rigid boundary between international and domestic scholarship can be sustained on either theoretical or empirical grounds.

The article deals with the analysis of contemporary issues of the judicial power of Ukraine while justice administering in civil cases. The author touches upon issues as for securing citizens' right to fair and unbiased judicial consideration basing on the principle of the rule of law. The author tried to find solution of complicated procedural contradictions of legislation and formed on this basis the determination of tasks of civil judicial proceedings.

This article situates Chapter 3 of Nasser Hussain's The Jurisprudence of Emergency within the broader reassessment in recent years of the history of habeas corpus in England during the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries. As it demonstrates, not only was Hussain ahead of his time in highlighting the means by which habeas became a tool not for the promotion of individual rights, but for the accumulation of judicial power and the concomitant normalization of emergencies; one can also see clear reflections of his analysis in the jurisprudence of U.S. courts arising out of the detention of non-citizens at Guantánamo.

'Die zeitgenössische politische Theorie attestiert Verfassungen und Verfassungsgerichten integrative Leistungen. Diese resultiert aus einem Konsens, der bestimmte Bereiche, Aspekte, Werte, Prozeduren oder Normen einer Verfassung umschließen soll. Gleichwohl variieren die Vorstellungen davon, wie man Konsens erreichen kann, worauf er sich bezieht und wie der Konsensbereich begründet werden kann. Entlang dieser drei Fragen werden vier Modelle der Integration qua Wertehomogenität, qua Diskurs, qua Neutralität und qua Konflikt gebildet. Aufgrund von Defiziten in diesen Modellen wird in einem zweiten Schritt ein alternatives Modell präsentiert, das Integration als gesellschaftliche Selbstbeobachtung versteht. Dieses Modell kann durch Diskursanalysen von Entscheidungen eines Verfassungsgerichts empirisch überprüft werden.' (Autorenreferat)

A series of decisions by the US Supreme Court raises the question of whether the federal judiciary will help to induce a major shift toward decentralization. Despite the ambitious hopes of some observers & the desperate fears of others, there are reasons to doubt that the Court will implement such a program. The justices are unlikely to persist in protecting states' rights in part because of their own ambivalence & in part because the idea itself is too self-contradictory to support a consistent interpretive agenda. Even if the Court were to overcome these problems, it lacks the capacity to control the relevant behaviors & attitudes. The main potential political allies in a states' rights campaign -- state officials & populist dissenters -- are unlikely to have interests compatible with judicial norms or to be effective voices for federalism. In fact, general social & cultural conditions seem to favor further centralization. 16 References. Adapted from the source document.