Refine your search

Search result: 4944 articles

x

Ariejan Korteweg
Ariejan Korteweg is journalist bij de Volkskrant. Hij studeerde sociologie in Leiden en politicologie in Amsterdam (UvA), werkte bij het Leidsch Dagblad, was hoofdredacteur van dansblad Notes en chef van de kunstredactie van de Volkskrant. In 2001 werd hij daar adjunct-hoofdredacteur, in 2007 correspondent in Parijs. Sinds 2013 is hij parlementair verslaggever en columnist. Hij schreef Surplace (2013) en Lobbyland (2016), dat laatste boek samen met Eline Huisman.

Rinus van Schendelen
Rinus van Schendelen is emeritus hoogleraar politicologie op de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, adviseur EU-beïnvloeding bij Bureau Brussels in Brussel en publiceerde onder meer ruim 40 boeken op het brede terrein van beïnvloeding van besluitvorming.

Karel Joos
Karel Joos is bestuurslid bij BEPACT en partner bij Interel, een Belgisch consultingbedrijf dat wereldwijd politiek advies verleent. Hij is de auteur van Lobbyen – Invloed, inzicht, impact (LannooCampus, 2015), het eerste Nederlandstalige handboek over corporate public affairs.

Hein Greven
Hein Greven is partner bij GKSV, bureau voor public affairs en communicatie in Amsterdam en oud-voorzitter van de Beroepsvereninging voor Public Affairs.
Article

De draaideur: van impasse naar uitweg

Journal Res Publica, Issue 3 2018
Keywords revolving door, lobbying, integrity, public values, polder democracy, regulatory solutions
Authors Toon Kerkhoff and Arco Timmermans
AbstractAuthor's information

    The revolving door is an ambiguous concept evoking strong opinions, and often is seen to lead to a decline in trust and legitimacy of the policy-making system of the Netherlands. But the different moral objections against the revolving door between functions and jobs in public and private organizations are barely matched with systematic empirical evidence of negative effects on the policy-making system. In this article, a definition of the concept is presented in order to help focusing the discussion on moral objections and practical implications of the revolving door. Two fundamental contradictions emerge from the panoply of arguments and assertions about this phenomenon. With our definition as a basis, we consider the different forms of the revolving door and discuss conditions under which it may be contained without solutions that are disproportionate to the problem. The way out is to develop clearer norms and integrity-enhancing mechanisms with which negative effects may be avoided and positive effects strengthened.


Toon Kerkhoff
Toon Kerkhoff is universitair docent bij het Instituut Bestuurskunde aan de Universiteit Leiden. Hij geeft leiding aan het Centre for Public Values & Ethics aan de Faculteit Governance & Global Affairs van de Universiteit Leiden, waar wetenschappelijk onderzoek wordt gedaan naar normatieve vraagstukken in de publieke sector en kennis daarover breder toegankelijk wordt gemaakt. Het onderzoek van Kerkhoff richt zich in het bijzonder op good governance en bestuurlijke ethiek, waarover hij ook onderwijs geeft in bachelor- en masteropleidingen.

Arco Timmermans
Arco Timmermans is bijzonder hoogleraar public affairs aan de Haagse Faculteit Governance & Global Affairs van de Universiteit Leiden. Zijn onderzoek en onderwijs gaan over de dynamiek van de maatschappelijke en politieke agenda, issuemanagement, lobbycoalities en de professionalisering van public affairs als terrein van wetenschap en praktijk. Hij is mede-oprichter en leider van de Nederlandse deelname in het internationale Comparative Agendas Project. Naast onderzoek en onderwijs in reguliere academische programma’s zoals de masterspecialisatie public affairs aan de Universiteit Leiden is hij ook intensief betrokken bij cursussen voor werkende professionals op het terrein van public affairs.

Julie Sevenans
Julie Sevenans is postdoctoraal onderzoeker van het FWO (Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Vlaanderen) in de onderzoeksgroep M2P (Media, Movements & Politics) aan de Universiteit Antwerpen. Haar doctoraatsonderzoek ging over politieke agendasetting, en meer specifiek over de mechanismen die de responsiviteit van politici ten aanzien van mediaberichtgeving drijven.
Introduction

Lobbyen in de Lage Landen

Journal Res Publica, Issue 3 2018
Authors Arco Timmermans
Author's information

Arco Timmermans
Arco Timmermans is bijzonder hoogleraar public affairs aan de Haagse Faculteit Governance & Global Affairs van de Universiteit Leiden. Zijn onderzoek en onderwijs gaan over de dynamiek van de maatschappelijke en politieke agenda, issuemanagement, lobbycoalities en de professionalisering van public affairs als terrein van wetenschap en praktijk. Hij is mede-oprichter en leider van de Nederlandse deelname in het internationale Comparative Agendas Project. Naast onderzoek en onderwijs in reguliere academische programma’s zoals de masterspecialisatie public affairs aan de Universiteit Leiden is hij ook intensief betrokken bij cursussen voor werkende professionals op het terrein van public affairs.
Article

Formele bestuurslaag of informele belangengroep?

Een literatuurstudie over de rol en invloed van lokale besturen in het Europese multilevel governance systeem

Journal Res Publica, Issue 3 2018
Keywords local government, Europeanization, multilevel governance, interest group politics, European decision-making, literature review
Authors Tom Verhelst
AbstractAuthor's information

    Should we consider local authorities and their associations as a formal government layer when they interact with the European institutions in order to influence EU legislation, or should this be classified as informal territorial interest group behaviour? This paper discusses the role and the influence of local authorities in the European decision-making process. Based on a literature review, the paper contrasts both positions in terms of theoretical underpinning, practical implementation and academic state of affairs. The paper demonstrates that whilst the formal perspective has gained more leeway in the official European policy discourse and subsequent institutionalisation in recent decades, it is often insufficient to guarantee the effective inclusion of local authorities in EU policy-making. Interest group action, i.e. lobbying, might therefore still be a more practical and powerful way of promoting local political interests in the European policy arena.


Tom Verhelst
Tom Verhelst is als postdoctoraal onderzoeker verbonden aan het Centrum voor Lokale Politiek van de Universiteit Gent. Hij schreef een proefschrift over de rol en positie van de gemeenteraad en de gemeenteraadsleden in België. Zijn huidig onderzoek heeft hoofdzakelijk betrekking op de Europeanisering van lokale besturen en de functie van lokale besturen in het Europese multilevel governance systeem. In het bijzonder buigt hij zich over de vraag hoe lokale besturen invloed kunnen uitoefenen op Europese besluitvorming.

Nicola Rohner

    De Ruiter en Van Pol (2017) presenteren als vaststaand feit dat slechts 10% of minder van alle beschuldigingen van kindermishandeling in echtscheidingsconflicten vals is. Sociale en juridische professionals die in een enquête een hoger percentage invulden, hebben volgens de auteurs te weinig kennis. De zekerheid die De Ruiter en Van Pol suggereren bestaat niet. Ten eerste verzuimen zij om de kernbegrippen ‘vals’, ‘beschuldiging’, ‘kindermishandeling’ en ‘echtscheidingsconflicten’ te definiëren. Ten tweede kan het onderzoek waar De Ruiter en Van Pol naar verwijzen hun conclusies niet dragen. Canadese maatschappelijk werkers registreerden slechts in een klein aantal gevallen dat een beschuldiging opzettelijk vals was. De Canadese auteurs wijzen expliciet op het subjectieve karakter van de bron van onderzoek. In meer dan de helft van alle onderzochte zaken was het onzeker gebleven of de beschuldiging op waarheid berust. Ten derde gaat het om onderzoeken naar de praktijk van de kinderbescherming in Canada en Australië van 20 jaar geleden. Dat wil zeggen: een andere tijd in andere landen, met een ander systeem dan vandaag in Nederland. Sociale en juridische professionals moeten werken met een aanzienlijke marge van onzekerheid, ook wanneer er grondig onderzoek naar de feiten gedaan is. Door deze onzekerheid te negeren mist de kritiek van De Ruiter en Van Pol op grote groepen professionals onderbouwing.
    ---
    De Ruiter & Van Pol (2017) present as a fact, that only 10% or less of all allegations of child abuse and neglect in divorce disputes is false. They state that social workers and lawyers who in a survey estimated a higher percentage have a lack of knowledge. With this position De Ruiter & Van Pol claim a grade of certainty that does not exist in child protection practice. First, the authors fail to define the key concepts ‘false’, ‘allegation’, ‘child abuse’ and ‘divorce disputes’. Second, the research De Ruiter & Van Pol refer to does not carry the conclusions they draw. The Canadian researchers report that child protection workers had classified a small percentage of cases as ‘intentionally fabricated’. However, the researchers make reservations about this finding since the source is the clinical judgment of the social workers. Moreover the researches emphasize that custody disputes is a context in which there is a high rate of unsubstantiated allegations. In fact, over 50% of all cases were not substantiated.
    Third, the three publications De Ruiter & Van Pol point at describe the practice in Australia and Canada twenty years ago. That is a different time in different countries with different systems compared to The Netherlands today. Social workers and judicial professionals work in a context of uncertainty about allegations and facts in many cases, even after thorough investigation in a particular case. In overlooking this uncertainty De Ruiter & Van Pol unfairly criticize large groups of professionals.


Mr. dr. Adri van Montfoort
Adri van Montfoort is jurist en pedagoog. Hij werkte in de jeugdzorg als hulpverlener, onderzoeker en leidinggevende. Hij promoveerde op een proefschrift over de aanpak van kindermishandeling in ons land. Hij heeft ruime ervaring in advisering en in het ontwerpen en leiden van projecten. Adri publiceerde sinds 1983 artikelen en boeken over kinderbescherming, aanpak van kindermishandeling, jeugdzorg en jeugdbeleid alsook over de veranderende verhoudingen tussen burgers, markt, gesubsidieerde instellingen en overheid. Hij was van 2007 tot 2015 lector Jeugdzorg en Jeugdbeleid bij Hogeschool Leiden. Sinds 1997 is Adri raadsheer plaatsvervanger in de familiekamer van het gerechtshof in Den Haag.
Article

The Margin of Appreciation in the ECtHR’s Case Law

A European Version of the Levels of Scrutiny Doctrine?

Journal European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 2-3 2018
Keywords ECHR, judicial deference, levels of scrutiny, margin of appreciation, U.S. federalism
Authors Koen Lemmens
AbstractAuthor's information

    Although the American doctrine of levels of scrutiny and the European concept of margin of appreciation are regularly compared as typical instances of deferential judicial decision-making, this article argues that owing to the institutional setting in which they operate, the differences between the two are notable. It is also argued that the social consequences of the application of the two concepts may even be radically opposed.


Koen Lemmens
Associate professor of Public Law at KU Leuven (Belgium) and press law VU Brussels (Belgium). The author thanks Toon Agten for his comments and Camille Van Peteghem for her assistance during research. The usual disclaimer applies. This volume (The EU Bill of Rights’ Diagonal Application to Member States. Ed. Csongor István Nagy) was published as part of the research project of the HAS-Szeged Federal Markets ‘Momentum’ Research Group.
Article

Three Tiers, Exceedingly Persuasive Justifications and Undue Burdens

Searching for the Golden Mean in US Constitutional Law

Journal European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 2-3 2018
Keywords Equal protection, franchise, fundamental rights, intermediate scrutiny, rationality review, reproductive rights, right to vote, strict scrutiny, substantive due process, undue burden, US constitutional law
Authors Barry Sullivan
AbstractAuthor's information

    When government action is challenged on equal protection grounds in the US, conventional wisdom holds that the courts will analyse constitutionality under one of three standards of review: rational basis, intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny. In substantive due process cases, two standards are applied: rational basis and strict scrutiny. In fact, careful study shows that the levels of scrutiny are actually more plastic than conventional wisdom would suggest and have shifted over time. In addition, courts sometimes confuse matters by appearing to introduce new tests, as when Justice Ginsburg characterized the government’s burden in Virginia v. United States, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) in terms of “an exceedingly persuasive justification”. Finally, while the Court originally applied strict scrutiny review to reproductive rights in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the Court has subsequently applied an ‘undue burden’ test in that area. A similar trend can be seen in voting rights cases. While the Court long ago characterized the right to vote as “fundamental … because preservative of all rights”, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886), and the modern Court initially applied strict scrutiny to voting rights, the Court has now moved away from strict scrutiny, just as it has in the reproductive rights area. This erosion of constitutional protection for voting rights is the central concern of this article. The focus here is on the way these tests have evolved with respect to limitations on the right to vote. The article begins with a description of the three-tiered paradigm and then considers the US Supreme Court’s development of the ‘undue burden’ test as a substitute for the strict scrutiny standard in the reproductive rights jurisprudence. The article then considers the Court’s analogous move away from strict scrutiny in voting rights cases. That move is particularly troubling because overly deferential review may subvert democratic government by giving elected officials enormous power to frame electoral rules in a way that potentially games the system for their own benefit. Building on existing scholarship with respect to reproductive rights, this article suggests a possible way forward, one that may satisfy the Court’s concerns with the need for regulation of the electoral process while also providing the more robust protection needed to protect the right to participate meaningfully in the electoral process.


Barry Sullivan
Cooney & Conway Chair in Advocacy and Professor of Law, Loyola University Chicago School of Law. The author is grateful to Jeffrey W. Gordon, Pilar Mendez and Tara Russo for expert research assistance, to Julienne Grant, Loyola University Chicago School of Law Reference Librarian, for additional research assistance, and to Michael Kaufman, Alfred S. Konefsky, Juan Perea, H. Jefferson Powell, Henry Rose, and Winnifred Fallers Sullivan for many helpful comments on an earlier draft. The author also wishes to thank the Cooney & Conway Chair Fund and the Loyola University School of Law Faculty Research Fund. The usual dispensation applies. This volume (The EU Bill of Rights’ Diagonal Application to Member States. Ed. Csongor István Nagy) was published as part of the research project of the HAS-Szeged Federal Markets ‘Momentum’ Research Group.
Article

Perspectives on Comparative Federalism

The American Experience in the Pre-incorporation Era

Journal European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 2-3 2018
Keywords 14th amendment, anti-federalists, Barron v. Baltimore (1833), Board of Education and other Cases (1954), Civil Rights Cases (1883), Bill of Rights, Brown v. Constitutional Convention (1787), Federalists, Holmes v. Jennsion (1840), Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), The Federalist (1787-1788)
Authors Kenneth R. Stevens
AbstractAuthor's information

    Today the Bill of Rights is understood to limit not only the federal government but also the power of the states to infringe on the civil liberties of citizens. This was not always the case. In the early days of the republic, most Americans feared federal authority far more than the states. This remained the case until passage of the 14th amendment to the Constitution followed by a series of interpretations over the years by the Supreme Court that broadened its scope. Some delegates at the convention of 1787 and other critics during ratification complained that the Constitution did not include a bill of rights, but others objected that the people needed such protections from government power. It became clear, however, that ratification could not be attained without inclusion of a Bill of Rights, which were adopted as amendments in 1791. In 1833, the Supreme Court ruled, in Barron v. Baltimore, that the provisions of the Bill of Rights imposed restrictions only on the federal government and not on the states. Passage of the 14th amendment in 1868 made the Bill of Rights restrictions on the states. Over the years, federal courts increasingly broadened the authority of the Bill of Rights as limitations on the states.


Kenneth R. Stevens
Professor, AddRan College of Liberal Arts, Texas Christian University. This volume (The EU Bill of Rights’ Diagonal Application to Member States. Ed. Csongor István Nagy) was published as part of the research project of the HAS-Szeged Federal Markets ‘Momentum’ Research Group.
Article

Federalization through Rights in the EU

A Legal Opportunities Approach

Journal European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 2-3 2018
Keywords EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Federalization, Integration, Legal change, Legal opportunities, Litigation, Scope of application
Authors Marie-Pierre Granger
AbstractAuthor's information

    While academic contributions abound on the reach and impact of the European Union (EU) system of fundamental rights protection, and notably on the desirability of a more or less extensive control of Member States’ actions in light of the rights protected by the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, there have been few attempts to explain the dynamics of integration-through-rights in the EU. This article proposes an explanatory framework inspired by a legal opportunities approach, which emphasizes the relevance of national and EU legal opportunities, and interactions between them, in determining the actual scope and pace of federalization through rights in the EU. It suggests that the weaker the legal opportunities for fundamental rights protection are at the domestic level, the greater the federalizing pressure is, and call for more empirical comparative studies to test this framework out.


Marie-Pierre Granger
Associate Professor, Central European University, Budapest. The development of the conceptual framework proposed in this article was inspired by empirical studies on France and Hungary carried out within the EU-funded project ‘bEUcitizen: barriers towards EU Citizenship’ under the FP7 programme (Grant agreement 320294). This volume (The EU Bill of Rights' Diagonal Application to Member States. Ed. Csongor István Nagy) was published as part of the research project of the HAS-Szeged Federal Markets `Momentum' Research Group.
Article

The Architecture of American Rights Protections

Texts, Concepts and Institutions

Journal European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 2-3 2018
Keywords American constitutional development, American legal history, Architecture, Bill of Rights, Congress, constitutional interpretation, constitutionalism, discrimination, due process, equal protection, equality, institutions, statutes, U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment
Authors Howard Schweber
AbstractAuthor's information

    This article examines the architecture of American rights protections. The term ‘architecture’ is used to convey the sense of a structure system with points of entry, channels of proceeding, and different end points. This structural understanding is applied to the historical development of national rights protections in the United States in three senses: textual, conceptual and institutional. The development of these three structured systems – architectures – of rights reveals dimensions of the strengths, limitations and distinctive character of the American rights protections in theory and in practice.


Howard Schweber
Professor of Political Science and affiliate faculty member of the Law School, Legal Studies, and Integrated Liberal Studies at University of Wisconsin-Madison. This volume (The EU Bill of Rights’ Diagonal Application to Member States. Ed. Csongor István Nagy) was published as part of the research project of the HAS-Szeged Federal Markets ‘Momentum’ Research Group.
Article

Rights in the Australian Federation

Journal European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 2-3 2018
Keywords Australian Constitution, bill of rights, constitutional rights, democracy, federalism, freedom of interstate trade, freedom of religion, implied rights, judicial independence, property rights, right to trial by jury, separation of powers
Authors Nicholas Aroney and James Stellios
AbstractAuthor's information

    The Australian Constitution is unique among constitutional instruments. It was primarily designed to federate self-governing British colonies within the British constitutional tradition and to establish institutions of federal government. As such, the constitutional instrument does not contain an entrenched bill of rights. Yet Australia has been a stable federal democracy since its establishment in 1901 and, by international standards, it is consistently assessed as maintaining high levels of personal freedom, political rights, civil liberties and the rule of law. This article considers the place of rights in the Australian federation against Australian constitutional history and its constitutional context.


Nicholas Aroney
Nicholas Aroney is Professor of Constitutional Law, The University of Queensland. The support of Australian Research Council grant FT100100469 is gratefully acknowledged. Thanks are also due to Terry East for his very capable research assistance. James Stellios is Professor, Law School, Australian National University. Part of this article benefited from the Australian Research Council’s Discovery Projects funding scheme: DP140101218. Part of this article benefited from the Australian Research Council’s Discovery Projects funding scheme: DP140101218. This volume (The EU Bill of Rights’ Diagonal Application to Member States. Ed. Csongor István Nagy) was published as part of the research project of the HAS-Szeged Federal Markets ‘Momentum’ Research Group.

James Stellios
Article

The Harmonization Potential of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Journal European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 2-3 2018
Keywords application of EU law, Article 51 of the Charter, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, Court of Justice, jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, market freedoms, spontaneous harmonization
Authors Filippo Fontanelli and Amedeo Arena
AbstractAuthor's information

    This article discusses two underrated and connected aspects that determine the applicability of the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights to Member State measures. First, the Charter can be a decisive standard of review for domestic measures only when they are covered by EU law but are not precluded by it. In this respect, the distinction between non-preclusion and non-application of EU law has been overlooked by legal scholarship. Second, because the scope of application of EU law and that of the Charter are identical, the latter suffers from the same uncertainties as the former. This article concludes that the entry into force of the Charter has exposed the blurred contours of the application of EU law, in particular in the area of the market freedoms. As a result, a certain spontaneous harmonization of human rights protection has emerged.


Filippo Fontanelli
Respectively, Senior Lecturer in International Economic Law, University of Edinburgh; and Associate Professor, Università degli Studi di Napoli ‘Federico II’. The work is the outcome of both authors’collaboration. Amedeo Arena drafted sections A to C, Filippo Fontanelli drafted sections D to G.

Amedeo Arena
A previous version of this work appeared in M. Andenas, T. Bekkedal & L. Pantaleo (Eds.), The Reach of Free Movement, Springer, TMC Asser Press, 2017, p. 293-312. This volume (The EU Bill of Rights’ Diagonal Application to Member States. Ed. Csongor István Nagy) was published as part of the research project of the HAS-Szeged Federal Markets ‘Momentum’ Research Group.
Editorial

The EU Bill of Rights’ Diagonal Application to Member States

Comparative Perspectives of Europe’s Human Rights Deficit

Journal European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 2-3 2018
Authors Csongor István Nagy
Author's information

Csongor István Nagy
Professor of law and head of the Department of Private International Law at the University of Szeged, research chair and the head of the Federal Markets ‘Momentum’ Research Group of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and an attorney-at-law admitted to the Budapest Bar. He serves as a recurrent visiting Professor at the Central European University (Budapest/New York), the Riga Graduate School of Law (Latvia) and the Sapientia University of Transylvania (Romania). This volume (The EU Bill of Rights’ Diagonal Application to Member States. Ed. Csongor István Nagy) was published as part of the research project of the HAS-Szeged Federal Markets ‘Momentum’ Research Group.
Article

Trinity Lutheran and Its Implications for Federalism in the United States

Journal European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 2-3 2018
Keywords anti-Catholic bias, Baby Blaine Amendments, Blaine Amendments, federalism, free exercise, non-discrimination, religious animus
Authors Brett G. Scharffs
AbstractAuthor's information

    This article considers the ‘tire scrap’ playground case, Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in the summer of 2017, and its implications for federalism in the United States. In Trinity Lutheran the U.S. Supreme Court held that the state of Missouri violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by disqualifying a church-owned school from participating in a programme that provided state funding for updating playgrounds. The case has interesting Free Exercise Clause implications, because the Court emphasized the non-discrimination component of Free Exercise. It also has interesting implications for federalism, because Missouri’s State constitutional provision prohibiting state funding of religion was rooted in an era of anti-Catholic bias. These so-called State constitutional ‘Blaine Amendments’ exist in some form in as many as forty states. Although the Court did not explicitly address whether state Blaine Amendments violate the U.S. Constitution per se due to their history of religious animus, the Court held that this Blaine Amendment as applied here violated the Federal Constitution. This could have significant effects for the wall of separation between religion and the state, and might have especially significant implications for state funding of religion, including the ‘elephant in the room’ in this case, state educational ‘voucher’ programmes that provide state funding to parents who send their children to religiously affiliated schools.


Brett G. Scharffs
Director, International Center for Law and Religion Studies and Rex E. Lee Chair and Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University. BSBA, MA, Georgetown University; BPhil (Rhodes Scholar) Oxford University; JD, Yale Law School. Thanks to Kyle Harvey, BYU Law Class of 2019 for his research assistance. Heartfelt thanks also to Professor Csongor István Nagy for the invitation to contribute to this project. This volume (The EU Bill of Rights’ Diagonal Application to Member States. Ed. Csongor István Nagy) was published as part of the research project of the HAS-Szeged Federal Markets ‘Momentum’ Research Group.
Article

The Sovereign Strikes Back

A Judicial Perspective on Multi-Layered Constitutionalism in Europe

Journal European Journal of Law Reform, Issue 2-3 2018
Keywords Constitutional identity, constitutionalism, fragmentation, globalization, multilayered constitution, sovereignty, trust
Authors Renáta Uitz and András Sajó
AbstractAuthor's information

    The supranational web of public law is often described as a new constitutionalism. It emerged in a globalized world together with global markets. In the course of the multilayered constitutional experiment, the old, national constitutional framework had lost its ability to deliver on the key features associated with constitutionalism: limiting the exercise of political powers and preventing the arbitrary exercise thereof. In the multilayered era it has become difficult to pinpoint the centre of authority. Ultimately, someone needs to govern, if not for other reasons, at least to avoid chaos. Is it possible to have the guarantees of freedom, rule of law and efficiency that a constitutional democracy seems to provide in a system where there is no sovereign with authority?


Renáta Uitz
Renáta Uitz is Professor, Chair of the Comparative Constitutional Law Program, Department of Legal Studies, Central European University, Budapest.

András Sajó
András Sajo is University Professor, Central European University, Budapest. This volume (The EU Bill of Rights’ Diagonal Application to Member States. Ed. Csongor István Nagy) was published as part of the research project of the HAS-Szeged Federal Markets ‘Momentum’ Research Group.
Showing 821 - 840 of 4944 results
1 2 38 39 40 42 44 45 46 49 50
You can search full text for articles by entering your search term in the search field. If you click the search button the search results will be shown on a fresh page where the search results can be narrowed down by category or year.