Fight these People!
On the need to fight these people, and the need to fight these people. And the need to fight these people.
On the need to fight these people, and the need to fight these people. And the need to fight these people.
“The protection of Hungary’s self-identity and its Christian culture is the duty of all state organizations” says one of the new provisions that were adopted on 20 June to change the country’s Fundamental Law of 2011. Besides its potential to limit fundamental rights, what are the possible consequences of this constitutional change, in legal, cultural and political terms?
On June 4, President Trump tweeted that the President has the absolute right to issue pardons, even to himself. The President’s claim came close on the heels of the New York Times’s publication of a letter two White House attorneys had sent months earlier to Robert Mueller, the Special Counsel appointed to investigate links between Trump’s election campaign and the Russian government. The lawyers argued that the President’s firing of FBI Director James Comey could not constitute obstruction of justice, because the President is the chief law enforcement officer of the nation, and can fire the FBI Director for any reason at all. Can it really be the case that the President of the United States is above the law?
We are constantly struggling to make sense of the politics of our time, to understand what links various developments and phenomena that we witness. Bernard E. Harcourt has written a book that offers such an interpretation. In "The Counterrevolution" he explains how the massive collection of data and the increasing militarization of police go together, how the changes in military and foreign policy relate to domestic US politics since 9/11, and where to place President Trump in this picture. At the occasion of his visit in Berlin, Bernard Harcourt was willing to give this brief interview and speak about the theses of his book.
With the UK Parliament debating CETA and the CJEU hearing arguments on the compatibility of EU law with the dispute resolution provisions, investor-state dispute resolution (ISDS) is very much in the news again. Many seem to be concerned about the integrity of the nation state, the ability of the people (within national boundaries) to order and determine their fates. Why should we not view ISDS as a threat to national wellbeing? The reason is that sometimes we need constraints on sovereign discretion.
The incremental deterioration of democratic rule worldwide is one of the most pressing global challenges today, and public lawyers are indispensable to the search for greater understanding of this phenomenon, and to the search for potential solutions. This challenge is now the focus of one of the most rapidly expanding research areas in public law: every week more research appears and more events and projects are announced as scholars push to grasp the unfolding and intensifying rollback of democratic progress globally. Yet, much of this global effort is scattered as scholars are cut off from one another by research field boundaries, geographic boundaries, and network boundaries.
Will the elections tomorrow change the course of the country in an equally abrupt and infinitely more dramatic manner? Is the seemingly limitless power of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi (Justice and Development Party) about to crumble? It’s too early to say. But it is definitely possible.
On geography in Europe, on the firmness of the ground underneath us and other matters of constitutional disorientation.
The Lebanese political system, based on the principle of confessional parity, is notoriously complex and rigid. In May, after years of gridlock due to sectarian strife, a new parliament was elected. But the fundamental problems remain unsolved. Issam Sleiman, the President of the Constitutional Council, has proposed a reform of enable the Constitutional Council to settle conflicts about the interpretation of the constitution.
In a previous post, I have argued that the recent decision of the Italian President Mattarella to refuse to appoint as Finance Minister Paolo Savona, was constitutional. Many have argued either in favour or against Mattarella’s decision, either from legal or political perspective, or both. My argument is as follows: (a) the decision to refuse Savona’s appointment is not only legal, but also legitimate, as confirmed by the legal-historical context, in which the Italian form of government has developed; (b) the reasons behind Mattarella’s decision are deeply linked with the “security of the European project”, a rationale which has been a constant feature of European integration. Yet conflicts and contradictions have been concealed for too long and should be addressed more directly.