Mohamed Moussa – författare

In this timely Research Handbook, leading legal scholars join forces with political scientists to discuss court adjudication in common and civil law systems. Chapters cover topical problems and debates in judicial studies and examine the institutional framework within which judges operate.Developing a multi-disciplinary analysis that combines legal, socio-legal, and political science perspectives, this Research Handbook explores the transformation of the justice system, adopting a contextual approach to court adjudication. Expert authors explore the use of generative AI, normative expectations about judgement-making and the effect on inclusive or responsive judging, and the role of court presidents, judicial associations, and judicial councils. Ultimately, the Research Handbook advances the understanding of the judiciary by highlighting elements of the justice system that are conducive to trust and judicial legitimacy, while suggesting avenues for further research.The Research Handbook on Judging and the Judiciary is an essential reference for socio-legal scholars and students of law and society. Constitutional lawyers, political scientists engaged in research concerning the judiciary, judges and other stakeholders in the justice reform sector would also benefit from the discussions in this important resource.

Disagreements on constitutional rights (such as racial and religious discrimination or abortion) are increasingly divisive. From the role of abortion in US presidential elections to debates about the competence creep of EU fundamental rights, the question arises: should the power to decide these matters rest with a central/federal union, or be left to individual states?This book addresses this crucial federal boundary question from both theoretical and comparative perspectives. It explores how the proper allocation of decision-making power in federal systems can enhance impartiality and reduce polarisation.The book both develops and critiques the influential constitutional theory of James Madison, architect of the US Constitution and modern federalism. By tracing Madison's intellectual debt to David Hume and to common law rules on bias, it identifies gaps in his account of impartiality. It also shows how a revised Madisonian framework remains relevant to contemporary struggles in both the US and the EU over managing discord through federal structures.The book's comparative dimension explores three categories of rights, each reflecting particular forms of social disagreement: (i) minority rights, which often trigger group bias and spark division between majorities and minorities;(ii) ideologically divisive rights, such as abortion; and (iii) cases where group and ideological bias overlap, such as those pitting religious freedoms against ideologically contested measures, including bans on ritual slaughter or religious apparel in public employment.By combining comparative and theoretical contributions, the book demonstrates both the perils and the promise of federalism in securing impartiality and navigating social faction.

Disagreements on constitutional rights (such as racial and religious discrimination or abortion) are increasingly divisive. From the role of abortion in US presidential elections to debates about the competence creep of EU fundamental rights, the question arises: should the power to decide these matters rest with a central/federal union, or be left to individual states?This book addresses this crucial federal boundary question from both theoretical and comparative perspectives. It explores how the proper allocation of decision-making power in federal systems can enhance impartiality and reduce polarisation.The book both develops and critiques the influential constitutional theory of James Madison, architect of the US Constitution and modern federalism. By tracing Madison's intellectual debt to David Hume and to common law rules on bias, it identifies gaps in his account of impartiality. It also shows how a revised Madisonian framework remains relevant to contemporary struggles in both the US and the EU over managing discord through federal structures.The book's comparative dimension explores three categories of rights, each reflecting particular forms of social disagreement: (i) minority rights, which often trigger group bias and spark division between majorities and minorities;(ii) ideologically divisive rights, such as abortion; and (iii) cases where group and ideological bias overlap, such as those pitting religious freedoms against ideologically contested measures, including bans on ritual slaughter or religious apparel in public employment.By combining comparative and theoretical contributions, the book demonstrates both the perils and the promise of federalism in securing impartiality and navigating social faction.

Disagreements on constitutional rights (such as racial and religious discrimination or abortion) are increasingly divisive. From the role of abortion in US presidential elections to debates about the competence creep of EU fundamental rights, the question arises: should the power to decide these matters rest with a central/federal union, or be left to individual states?This book addresses this crucial federal boundary question from both theoretical and comparative perspectives. It explores how the proper allocation of decision-making power in federal systems can enhance impartiality and reduce polarisation.The book both develops and critiques the influential constitutional theory of James Madison, architect of the US Constitution and modern federalism. By tracing Madison’s intellectual debt to David Hume and to common law rules on bias, it identifies gaps in his account of impartiality. It also shows how a revised Madisonian framework remains relevant to contemporary struggles in both the US and the EU over managing discord through federal structures.The book’s comparative dimension explores three categories of rights, each reflecting particular forms of social disagreement: (i) minority rights, which often trigger group bias and spark division between majorities and minorities;(ii) ideologically divisive rights, such as abortion; and (iii) cases where group and ideological bias overlap, such as those pitting religious freedoms against ideologically contested measures, including bans on ritual slaughter or religious apparel in public employment.By combining comparative and theoretical contributions, the book demonstrates both the perils and the promise of federalism in securing impartiality and navigating social faction.

In this timely Research Handbook, leading legal scholars join forces with political scientists to discuss court adjudication in common and civil law systems. Chapters cover topical problems and debates in judicial studies and examine the institutional framework within which judges operate.Developing a multi-disciplinary analysis that combines legal, socio-legal, and political science perspectives, this Research Handbook explores the transformation of the justice system, adopting a contextual approach to court adjudication. Expert authors explore the use of generative AI, normative expectations about judgement-making and the effect on inclusive or responsive judging, and the role of court presidents, judicial associations, and judicial councils. Ultimately, the Research Handbook advances the understanding of the judiciary by highlighting elements of the justice system that are conducive to trust and judicial legitimacy, while suggesting avenues for further research.The Research Handbook on Judging and the Judiciary is an essential reference for socio-legal scholars and students of law and society. Constitutional lawyers, political scientists engaged in research concerning the judiciary, judges and other stakeholders in the justice reform sector would also benefit from the discussions in this important resource.

In this timely Research Handbook, leading legal scholars join forces with political scientists to discuss court adjudication in common and civil law systems. Chapters cover topical problems and debates in judicial studies and examine the institutional framework within which judges operate.Developing a multi-disciplinary analysis that combines legal, socio-legal, and political science perspectives, this Research Handbook explores the transformation of the justice system, adopting a contextual approach to court adjudication. Expert authors explore the use of generative AI, normative expectations about judgement-making and the effect on inclusive or responsive judging, and the role of court presidents, judicial associations, and judicial councils. Ultimately, the Research Handbook advances the understanding of the judiciary by highlighting elements of the justice system that are conducive to trust and judicial legitimacy, while suggesting avenues for further research.The Research Handbook on Judging and the Judiciary is an essential reference for socio-legal scholars and students of law and society. Constitutional lawyers, political scientists engaged in research concerning the judiciary, judges and other stakeholders in the justice reform sector would also benefit from the discussions in this important resource.