Suchergebnisse

The article analyzes the principles that make up the constitutional legality and unity of the legal space in the Russian Federation. The role of Prosecutor's authorities and judicial bodies in ensuring constitutional legality and unity of legal space in Russia is shown.

ABSTRACTThe essay underlines that, even in the light of the current global challenges set out by terrorism and extremism, public safety is not a per se individual right but only the aim of a public function of the State. In this sense, the author holds that public order has a different meaning if taken into account in a democratic government or in a totalitarian one: in the first one, public order depicts a situation of "material" peace (the absence of disorder caused by human or natural events); in the latter, public order depicts the absence of "ideal" disorder caused even by pacific behaviours. He finally focuses on the extent of the limits to the public function of the State in this specific field both in general and in relation to the single constitutional rights. ; RESUMENEl presente artículo reflexiona acerca de las nuevas dimensiones en el planteamiento de la seguridad pública por el terrorismo y el extremismo. Desde esta perspectiva, el autor critica en primer término la tendencia a utilizar de modo impropio y confuso el término "derecho a la seguridad" por cuanto la seguridad es el contenido de una función del Estado que no se resuelve en un derecho individual; en segundo lugar, el autor confirma su tesis, ya sostenida hace más de cincuenta años, según la cual, de un lado seguridad pública y orden público son las dos caras de la misma moneda y, de otro lado, el concepto de orden público asume un significado diverso según el contexto político-institucional: "orden material" en los ordenamientos democráticos, el cual puede quedar lesionado sólo por comportamientos violentos o por hechos naturales (terremotos, inundaciones, etc.); "orden ideal" en los ordenamientos autoritarios en los que el orden público puede quedar dañado asimismo por comportamientos pacíficos como una manifestación pública del pensamiento; y finalmente aborda la extensión de los límites impuestos a la función de seguridad en la legalidad constitucional.ABSTRACTThe essay underlines that, even in the light of the current global challenges set out by terrorism and extremism, public safety is not a per se individual right but only the aim of a public function of the State. In this sense, the author holds that public order has a different meaning if taken into account in a democratic government or in a totalitarian one: in the first one, public order depicts a situation of "material" peace (the absence of disorder caused by human or natural events); in the latter, public order depicts the absence of "ideal" disorder caused even by pacific behaviours. He finally focuses on the extent of the limits to the public function of the State in this specific field both in general and in relation to the single constitutional rights.

El trabajo analiza algunas deficiencias de la Constitución española de 1978 desde la premisa de que los límites constitucionales que pueden imponerse al ejercicio de la soberanía popular en democracia nunca pueden exceder, so pena de perder su legitimidad, el mínimo necesario para garantizar la inviolabilidad de los derechos que se consideran esenciales para la convivencia pacífica. Sin embargo, se argumenta que algunas de las restricciones, fruto del contexto en el que fueron redactadas, exceden este límite y son cuestionables en la medida en que suponen un impedimento para alcanzar los principales objetivos que la misma Constitución dice defender desde su inicio ; The paper analyses some deficiencies of the Spanish Constitution of 1978 from the premise that the constitutional limits that may be imposed on the exercise of popular sovereignty in a democracy can never exceed, without losing its legitimacy, the minimum necessary to ensure the inviolability of the rights considered essential for peaceful coexistence. However, it is argued that some of the restrictions detected, the result of the context in which they were written, do exceed this limit and can be considered illegitimate as they pose an impediment to achieving the main goals that the Constitution claims to defend from its inception

The paper analyses some deficiencies of the Spanish Constitution of 1978 from the premise that the constitutional limits that may be imposed on the exercise of popular sovereignty in a democracy can never exceed, without losing its legitimacy, the minimum necessary to ensure the inviolability of the rights considered essential for peaceful coexistence. However, it is argued that some of the restrictions detected, the result of the context in which they were written, do exceed this limit and can be considered illegitimate as they pose an impediment to achieving the main goals that the Constitution claims to defend from its inception.Keywords: . ; El trabajo analiza algunas deficiencias de la Constitución española de 1978 desde la premisa de que los límites constitucionales que pueden imponerse al ejercicio de la soberanía popular en democracia nunca pueden exceder, so pena de perder su legitimidad, el mínimo necesario para garantizar la inviolabilidad de los derechos que se consideran esenciales para la convivencia pacífica. Sin embargo, se argumenta que algunas de las restricciones, fruto del contexto en el que fueron redactadas, exceden este límite y son cuestionables en la medida en que suponen un impedimento para alcanzar los principales objetivos que la misma Constitución dice defender desde su inicio.

The enforcement of the Cadiz Constitution in the province of Venezuela brought about different responses from the authorities in charge of the organisation of the territories at the end of the first republican experiment in July 1812. To analyse these responses, the kind of arguments used by the authorities in conflict, and how the deputies in Cadiz reacted to this diversity of opinions is the purpose of this article. ; La aplicación de la Constitución de Cádiz en la provincia de Venezuela suscitó respuestas diversas por parte de las autoridades que tuvieron a su cargo la conducción de esos territorios al concluir el primer ensayo republicano en julio de 1812. Analizar cuáles fueron estas respuestas, qué tipo de argumentos esgrimieron las autoridades en conflicto y cómo reaccionaron los diputados de Cádiz respecto a esta diversidad de pareceres es el propósito del presente artículo.

The US Supreme Court has the power of certiorari. It may pick its fights. As a beneficial side effect, the court may allocate its resources, in particular the time and energy the justices spend on a case, to worthy causes. In economic parlance, this discretion makes the court more efficient. Efficiency comes at a political cost, though. This discretion also gives the court political power. It may direct its verdict to causes that are politically most relevant, or it may put an issue on the political agenda. Officially German constitutional law does not have certiorari. The Constitutional Court must decide each and every case that is brought. Yet over time the court has crafted a whole arsenal of more subtle measures for managing the case load. This paper shows that it uses these tools to engage in its version of allocating resources to cases. It investigates whether the ensuing efficiency gain comes at the cost of biasing the court's jurisprudence. The paper exploits a new comprehensive data set. It consists of all (mostly only electronically) published cases the court has heard in 2011. While the data is rich, in many technical ways it is demanding. The paper uses a factor analysis to create a latent variable: to which degree has the court taken an individual case seriously? It then investigates whether observed indicators for bias explain this latent variable. Since the paper essentially investigates a single (independent) case, in statistical terms the findings are to be interpreted with caution. The paper can only aim at finding smoking guns.

Рассматриваются проблемы взаимодействия Конституционного Суда Республики Беларусь и судов общей юрисдикции в сфере утверждения конституционной законности. Анализируются обстоятельства, препятствующие реализации положений ч. 2 ст. 112 Конституции Республики Беларусь на практике, и предлагаются законодательные варианты их устранения. Особое внимание уделяется обоснованию необходимости внедрения в Республике Беларусь института преюдициального запроса и пересмотру роли Верховного Суда Республики Беларусь в механизме, предусмотренном ч. 2 ст. 112 Конституции Республики Беларусь. ; The article deals with the problems of interaction between the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Belarus and the courts of general jurisdiction in the area of constitutional legality. The circumstances that impede the implementation of the provisions of part two of article 112 of the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus in practice are analyzed, and legislative options for their elimination are proposed. Special attention is paid to justifying the need to introduce the institution of a preliminary ruling in the Republic of Belarus and review the role of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus in the mechanism provided by the second part of article 112 of the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus.

It is widely recognized that times of national emergency put legality to its greatest test. In such times we rely on sovereign power to rescue us, to hold the danger at bay. Yet that power can and often does threaten the values of legality itself. Sovereignty, Emergency, Legality examines law's complex relationship to sovereign power and emergency conditions. It puts today's responses to emergency in historical and institutional context, reminding readers of the continuities and discontinuities in the ways emergencies are framed and understood at different times and in different situations. And, in all this, it suggests the need to be less abstract in the way we discuss sovereignty, emergency, and legality. This book concentrates on officials and the choices they make in defining, anticipating, and responding to conditions of emergency as well as the impact of their choices on embodied subjects, whether citizen or stranger

This is the Introductory chapter to The Eclipse of the Legality Principle in the European Union, Edited by Leonard Besselink, Frans Pennings, Sacha Prechal [European Monographs, vol. 75], Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, 2011 [2010], xxv + 303 pp.