A Crisis of Representation
The failure to offer a serious alternative to the current maladies of capitalism should not be construed as a constitutional crisis.
Articles for category: English Articles
The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters
Part of the malaise surrounding our contemporary world is a tendency to view constitutional politics, to borrow Goethe’s metaphor, as architecture rather than music; as fixed and immutable rather than a dynamic phenomenon which requires the ongoing assertion and reassertion of the key values and terms of engagement of our mutual interaction with each other and with authority. Six practical suggestions how to defend our constitutional values.
High time for popular constitutionalism!
Not long ago the advent of illiberal democracy has been announced. It has been mocked, downplayed, but also seriously critically engaged with, including by the authors of this blog. However, since the idea has come from marginal countries in the European East, from Hungary, Poland, but also Slovenia and the likes, it has not been really perceived as an objective threat to the Western constitutional order. The election of Donald Trump, not for who he is, but what he has been standing for, must change this.
Miller, Brexit and the (maybe not to so evil) Court of Justice
As strange as this might sound, hardcore Brexiteers have now their closest and most reliable ally not at home. But in what they have considered to be, all these years, the evil, monstrous, devilish, undemocratic, unelected, corrupt and dictatorial Court of Justice of the European Union.
The Article 50 Litigation and the Court of Justice: Why the Supreme Court must NOT refer
Is the UK Supreme Court in the current Brexit case obliged to refer to the Luxembourg Court? If that were the case, the conformity of any Member State’s EU exit with its own constitutional requirements would be open to review by the CJEU – and hence could no longer be qualified as an act of self-determination since a EU institution would have the final say on it.
Geert Wilders‹ »Incitement to Discriminate« Trial
Months before the parliamentary elections in the Netherlands, the leader of the far-right Freedom Party and election favorite Geert Wilders finds himself before a criminal court. He is charged with insulting and inciting discrimination against residents of Moroccan descent by promising his supporters "fewer Moroccans" in 2014. Wilders and his defence seem to invoke the theory of the ‘marketplace of ideas’, which is a common line of thinking in United States First Amendment law. The principal standard for Dutch courts however, the European Convention of Human Rights, takes a somewhat different stance.
The Article 50 Litigation and the Court of Justice: Why the Supreme Court must refer
Article 50 TEU says that member states decide to withdraw from the Union "according to their own constitutional requirements". It is for the Luxembourg Court to clarify what this means. Thus, in the current case on Brexit the UK Supreme Court is obliged to refer to the European Court of Justice. One could argue that this should never have been made a Union problem. But it was, and, like it or not, that makes it the Court of Justice’s problem too.
Who Speaks in the Name of the People?
The practice of using a referendum to justify the power of the executive has been used and abused throughout history. Napoleon who ruled like a plebiscitarian monarch can serve as the best counter example for contemporary liberal democratic regimes. All the institutions of the government, the executive, the parliament and the judiciary speak in the name of the people in our conception of the western democratic constitutionalism. It is only thanks to the checks and balances that the separation of powers provides in a conception of collaborative constitutionalism that we can avoid practices of misusing references to a supposed democratic legitimacy in view of derailing the operations of the government in a direction that is entirely out of control of democracy itself.
Brexit, Democracy and the Rule of Law
The decision of the High Court in London this week was a ruling not on whether Brexit should happen, but on how it can happen lawfully. There is nothing at all in the court’s judgment to block the will of the people, to reverse the result of the referendum, or to get in the way of Brexit. Nor is there anything inappropriate in turning to the courts to determine how Brexit can proceed in accordance with the rule of law. That said, as a lawyer I think the court’s ruling is wrong.
CETA, Trump and „Enemies of the People“
What a week… On Thursday, the High Court of Justice in England and Wales has ruled that the UK government cannot push the Brexit button all by itself but has to involve Parliament instead. In reaction to that, the British tabloid press has revealed what stuff parts of the Brexit movement are actually made of. My thoughts about the instantly notorious North-Korean-style „Enemies of the People“ headline of the Daily Mail and what this, as part of a larger phenomenon of rampant anti-constitutional populism, bodes for the future of constitutional democracy is here (and, in German,
