Hart Studies in Comparative Public Law – serie

This is the first comprehensive book that explores the subject of federalism from the perspective of comparative constitutional law, whilst simultaneously placing a strong emphasis on how federal systems work in practice. This focus is reflected in the book’s two most innovative elements. First, it analyses from a comparative point of view how government levels exercise their powers and interact in several highly topical policy areas like social welfare, environmental protection or migrant integration. Second, the book incorporates case law boxes discussing seminal judgments from federal systems worldwide and thus demonstrates the practical impact of constitutional jurisprudence on policymakers and citizens alike.“This is simply the best analysis of contemporary federalism currently available. It is comprehensive in its coverage, thorough in its analysis, and persuasive in its conclusions. Every student of federalism, from novice to expert, will find benefit from this volume.” Professor G Alan Tarr, Rutgers University“Wading through the thicket of the multiple forms that the federal idea has taken in the contemporary world, this remarkably comprehensive treatise backed by case law fills a long-awaited gap in the literature on comparative federalism. It combines a mastery of the literature on federal theory with a critical understanding of how it plays out in practice. Outstanding in the breadth of its scope, this magisterial survey will serve as a work of reference for generations of scholars who seek to understand how federalism works in developed as well as developing countries.” Professor Balveer Arora, Jawaharlal Nehru University New Delhi“This book is an extraordinarily handy work of reference on the diverse federal-type systems of the world. It handles both shared principles and differences of perspective, structure or practice with confidence and ease. It will become a standard work for scholars and practitioners working in the field.” Professor Cheryl Saunders, The University of Melbourne“This is a remarkable book – for its sheer breadth of scope, combining detail of practice with analysis of federal principles, and for its fresh look at federalism. With great erudition, drawing on world scholarship and the practice of federalism across the globe, Palermo and Kössler magnificently traverse from the ancient roots of federalism to the contemporary debates on ethno-cultural dimensions and participatory democracy. The book sets a new benchmark for the study of comparative federalism, providing new insights that are bound to influence practice in an era where federal arrangements are expected to deliver answers to key governance and societal challenges.” Professor Nico Steytler, University of the Western Cape

What does Israel’s definition as a 'Jewish and democratic' state mean? How does it affect constitutional law? How does it play out in the daily life of the people living in Israel? This book provides a unique and detailed examination of the consequences of the ‘Jewish and democratic’ definition. It explores how the definition affects the internal ordering of the state, the operation of the law, and the ways it is used to justify, protect and regenerate certain features of Israeli constitutional law. It also considers the relationship between law and settler-colonialism, and how this relationship manifests itself in the constitutional order.The Dynamics of Exclusionary Constitutionalism offers a novel perspective on the Jewish and democratic definition rooted in constitutional theory and informed by a socio-legal approach. Relying on a wide range of court cases and statutes as well as secondary sources, the book shows how the definition is deeply embedded in the constitutional structure, and operates, as a matter of law, in a manner that concentrates political power in the hands of the Jewish citizens and excludes the Palestinian Arab citizens in Israel from the political process.Mazen Masri's study is a timely intervention in an increasingly important question, and is essential reading for those who want to understand Israel’s character, its relationship with the constitutional order, and its impact on society.

Should an employee be allowed to wear a religious symbol at work? Should a religious employer be allowed to impose constraints on employees’ private lives for the sake of enforcing a religious work ethos? Should an employee or service provider be allowed, on religious grounds, to refuse to work with customers of the opposite sex or of a same-sex sexual orientation? This book explores how judges decide these issues and defends a democratic approach, which is conducive to a more democratic understanding of our vivre ensemble. The normative democratic approach proposed in this book is grounded on a sociological and historical analysis of two national stories of the relationships between law, religion, diversity and the State, the British (mainly English) and the French stories. The book then puts the democratic paradigm to the test, by looking at cases involving clashes between religious freedoms and competing rights in the workplace. Contrary to the current alternative between the “accommodationist view”, which defers to religious requests, and the “analogous” view, which undermines the importance of religious freedom for pluralism, this book offers a third way. It fills a gap in the literature on the relationships between law and religious freedoms and provides guidelines for judges confronted with difficult cases.

A significant part of the world's population lives under some sort of federal arrangement. And yet, the concepts of federalism and federation remain under-theorised. Federalist theorists have, for the most part, defined their object by opposition to the unitary state. As a result, they have not developed public law theories that capture the specificity of this type of polity. Bringing together contributions from leading public law theorists and intellectual historians, this volume explores the foundations of federalism. It develops novel perspectives on the core problems of traditional federalist theory and charts new departures in federalist theory and federal power-sharing. At a time when we look for more inclusive ways of ordering public life, the volume fills an urgent theoretical and political need.

The West's cherished dream of social harmony by numbers is today disrupting all our familiar legal frameworks - the state, democracy and law itself. Its scientistic vision shaped both Taylorism and Soviet Planning, and today, with 'globalisation', it is flourishing in the form of governance by numbers. Shunning the goal of governing by just laws, and empowered by the information and communication technologies, governance champions a new normative ideal of attaining measurable objectives. Programmes supplant legislation, and governance displaces government.However, management by objectives revives forms of law typical of economic vassalage. When a person is no longer protected by a law applying equally to all, the only solution is to pledge allegiance to someone stronger than oneself. Rule by law had already secured the principle of impersonal power, but in taking this principle to extremes, governance by numbers has paradoxically spawned a world ruled by ties of allegiance.

It is commonly asserted that bills of rights have had a ‘righting’ effect on the principles of judicial review of administrative action and have been a key driver of the modern expansion in judicial oversight of the executive arm of government. A number of commentators have pointed to Australian administrative law as evidence for this ‘righting’ hypothesis. They have suggested that the fact that Australia is an outlier among common law jurisdictions in having neither a statutory nor a constitutional framework to expressly protect human rights explains why Australia alone continues to take an apparently ‘formalist’, ‘legalist’ and ‘conservative’ approach to administrative law. Other commentators and judges, including a number in Canada, have argued the opposite: that bills of rights have the effect of stifling the development of the common law. However, for the most part, all these claims remain just that – there has been limited detailed analysis of the issue, and no detailed comparative analysis of the veracity of the claims. This book analyses in detail the interaction between administrative and human rights law in Australia and Canada, arguing that both jurisdictions have reached remarkably similar positions regarding the balance between judicial and executive power, and between broader fundamental principles including the rule of law, parliamentary sovereignty and the separation of powers. It will provide valuable reading for all those researching judicial review and human rights.

There is growing interest in constitutional amendment from a comparative perspective. Comparative constitutional amendment is the study of how constitutions change through formal and informal means, including alteration, revision, evolution, interpretation, replacement and revolution. The field invites scholars to draw insights about constitutional change across borders and cultures, to uncover the motivations behind constitutional change, to theorise best practices, and to identify the theoretical underpinnings of constitutional change.This volume is designed to guide the emergence of comparative constitutional amendment as a distinct field of study in public law. Much of the recent scholarship in the field has been written by the scholars assembled in this volume. This book, like the field it hopes to shape, is not comparative alone; it is also doctrinal, historical and theoretical, and therefore offers a multiplicity of perspectives on a subject about which much remains to be written. This book aspires to be the first to address comprehensively the new dimensions of the study of constitutional amendment, and will become a reference point for all scholars working on the subject. The volume covers all of the topics where innovative work is being done, such as the notion of the people, the trend of empirical quantitative approaches to constitutional change, unamendability, sunrise clauses, constitutional referenda, the conventional divide between constituent and constituted powers, among other important subjects. It creates a dialogue that cuts through these innovative conceptualisations and highlights scholarly disagreement and, in so doing, puts ideas to the test. The volume therefore captures the fierce ongoing debates on the relevant topics, it reveals the current trends and contested issues, and it offers a variety of arguments elaborated by prominent experts in the field. It will open the way for further dialogue.

This book analyses the Nordic constitutional systems of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden in a comparative context. It has two main aims: first to fill a gap in the literature by providing an accessible English language account of the Nordic constitutions, and second to provide a comparative analysis of them, revealing their similarities and differences within their political, historical and cultural contexts. In this respect, the book challenges the assumption that the Nordic countries form a homogeneous constitutional system due to their cultural and historical affinities, a view not necessarily supported by a close comparative examination. A key issue is EU membership –where the Nordic countries have made different choices at different times – and the book will show how this has affected the individual countries and whether a divide between EU member states (Denmark, Finland and Sweden) and non-members (Iceland and Norway) has appeared. Another key issue is how the ECHR has impacted the Nordic constitutional systems and whether the convention draws the Nordic systems closer to each other. The book represents a first of its kind in the English language, and will provide constitutional scholars with a valuable comparative resource on the Nordic region.

In many countries today there is a growing and genuinely-held concern that the institutional arrangements for the protection of human rights suffer from a ‘democratic deficit’. Yet at the same time there appears to be a new consensus that human rights require legal protection and that all branches of the state have a shared responsibility for upholding and realising those legally protected rights. This volume of essays tries to understand this paradox by considering how parliaments have sought to discharge their responsibility to protect human rights. Contributors seek to take stock of the extent to which national and sub-national parliaments have developed legislative review for human rights compatibility, and the effect of international initiatives to increase the role of parliaments in relation to human rights. They also consider the relationship between legislative review and judicial review for human rights compatibility, and whether courts could do more to incentivise better democratic deliberation about human rights. Enhancing the role of parliaments in the protection and realisation of human rights emerges as an idea whose time has come, but the volume makes clear that there is a great deal more to do in all parliaments to develop the institutional structures, processes and mechanisms necessary to put human rights at the centre of their function of making law and holding the government to account. The sense of democratic deficit is unlikely to dissipate unless parliaments empower themselves by exercising the considerable powers and responsibilities they already have to interpret and apply human rights law, and courts in turn pay closer attention to that reasoned consideration.‘I believe that this book will be of enormous value to all of those interested in human rights, in modern legislatures, and the relationship between the two. As this is absolutely fundamental to the characterand credibility of democracy, academic insight of this sort is especially welcome. This is an area where I expect there to be an ever expanding community of interest.’ From the Foreword by the Rt Hon John Bercow MP, Speaker of the House of Commons

In legal decisions and commentary, freedom of assembly is widely cherished as a precious human right and as indispensable for the preservation of democratic governance. But despite this rhetoric assemblies are subject to extensive regulation, such as prior restraints, and restrictions on the time, place and manner of assemblies. This comparative study examines five influential jurisdictions and reveals similarities and inconsistencies between them. It finds that freedom of assembly is often subjugated to freedom of expression in a way that disregards the expressive potential of assemblies. The shortcomings include the misconstrued content neutrality and public forum doctrines in the US, blanket bans and other restrictions based on intangible and distant harm in the UK, preventative restrictions and viewpoint discrimination in Germany, and the uncertain status of freedom of assembly and opaque judicial reasoning in France. Such inconsistencies also present challenges for the European Court of Human Rights in developing a coherent assembly doctrine. The book argues that it is time for jurisprudence to move away from a narrowly focused concept of expression, and recognise the creative and expressive value of freedom of assembly.

The principles of freedom of expression have been developed over centuries. How are they reserved and passed on? How can large internet gatekeepers be required to respect freedom of expression and to contribute actively to a diverse and plural marketplace of ideas? These are key issues for media regulation, and will remain so for the foreseeable decades. The book starts with the foundations of freedom of expression and freedom of the press, and then goes on to explore the general issues concerning the regulation of the internet as a specific medium. It then turns to analysing the legal issues relating to the three most important gatekeepers whose operations directly affect freedom of expression: ISPs, search engines and social media platforms. Finally it summarises the potential future regulatory and media policy directions. The book takes a comparative legal approach, focusing primarily on English and American regulations, case law and jurisprudential debates, but it also details the relevant international developments (Council of Europe, European Union) as well as the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.

Inspired by the work of Professor Michael Taggart, this collection of essays from across the common law world is concerned with two separate but related themes. First, to what extent and by what means should review on substantive grounds such as unreasonableness be expanded and intensified? Jowell, Elliott and Varuhas all agree with Taggart that proportionality should not ‘sweep the rainbow’, but propose different schemes for organising and conceptualising substantive review. Groves and Weeks, and Hoexter evaluate the state of substantive review in Australia and South Africa respectively.The second theme concerns the broader (Canadian) sense of substantive review including the illegality grounds, and whether deference should extend to these grounds. Cane and Aronson consider the relevance and impact of different constitutional and doctrinal settings. Wilberg and Daly address questions concerning when and how deference is to operate once it is accepted as appropriate in principle.Rights-based review is discussed in a separate third part because it raises both of the above questions. Geiringer, Sales and Walters examine the choices to be made in settling the approach in this area, each focusing on a different dichotomy.Taggart’s work is notable for treating these various aspects of substantive review as parts of a broader whole, and for his search for an appropriate balance between judicial scrutiny and administrative autonomy across this entire area. By bringing together essays on all these topics, this volume seeks to build on that approach.

The world appears to be globalising economically, technologically and even, to a halting extent, politically. This process of globalisation raises the possibility of an international legal framework, a possibility which has gained pressing relevance in the wake of the recent global economic crisis. But for any international legal framework to exist, normative agreement between countries, with very different political, economic, cultural and legal traditions, becomes necessary. This work explores the possibility of such a normative agreement through the prism of national constitutional norms. Since 1945, more than a hundred countries have adopted constitutional texts which incorporate, at least in part, a Bill of Rights. These texts reveal significant similarities; the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for instance, had a marked influence on the drafting of the Bill of Rights for South Africa, New Zealand and Hong Kong as well as the Basic Law of Israel. Similarly, the drafts of Eastern European constitutions reflect significant borrowing from older texts. The essays in this book examine the depth of these similarities; in particular the extent to which textual borrowings point to the development of foundational values in these different national legal systems and the extent of the similarities or differences between these values and the priorities accorded to them. From these national studies the work analyses the rise of constitutionalism since the Second World War, and charts the possibility of a consensus on values which might plausibly underpin an effective and legitimate international legal order.

Entick v Carrington is one of the canons of English public law and in 2015 it is 250 years old. In 1762 the Earl of Halifax, one of His Majesty’s Principal Secretaries of State, despatched Nathan Carrington and three other of the King’s messengers to John Entick’s house in Stepney. They broke into his house, seizing his papers and causing significant damage. Why? Because he was said to have written seditious papers published in the Monitor. Entick sued Carrington and the other messengers for trespass. The defendants argued that the Earl of Halifax had given them legal authority to act as they had. Lord Camden ruled firmly in Entick’s favour, holding that the warrant of a Secretary of State could not render lawful actions such as these which were otherwise unlawful. The case is a canonical statement of the common law’s commitment to the constitutional principle of the rule of law. In this collection, leading public lawyers reflect on the history of the case, the enduring importance of the legal principles for which it stands, and the broader implications of Entick v Carrington 250 years on.Winner of the American Society for Legal History Sutherland Prize 2016.

Vigorous debate exists among constitutional scholars as to the appropriate ‘modalities’ of constitutional argument, and their relative weight. Many scholars, however, argue that one important modality of constitutional argument involves attention to underlying constitutional purposes or ‘values’. In Australia, this kind of values-oriented approach has been advocated by leading constitutional scholars, and also finds support in the judgments of the High Court at various times, particularly during the Mason Court era. Much of the scholarly debate on constitutional values to date, however, focuses on whether the Court should in fact look to constitutional values in this way, not the kinds of values the Court should consider, given such an approach. This book responds to this gap in the existing scholarly literature, by inviting a range of leading Australian constitutional lawyers and scholars to address the relevance and scope of various substantive constitutional values, and how they might affect the Court’s approach to constitutional interpretation in various contexts. It is essential reading for anyone seeking a deeper understanding of Australia’s constitutional system.

In recent years, the question whether judges should defer to administrative decisions has attracted considerable interest amongst public lawyers throughout the common law world. This book examines how the common law of judicial review has responded to the development of the administrative state in three different common law jurisdictions – the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Canada – over the past 100 years. This comparison demonstrates that the idea of judicial deference is a valuable feature of modern administrative law, because it gives lawyers and judges practical guidance on how to negotiate the constitutional tension between the democratic legitimacy of the administrative state and the judicial role in maintaining the rule of law.

This book considers the phenomenon of soft law employed by domestic public authorities. Lawyers have long understood that public authorities are able to issue certain communications in a way that causes them to be treated like law, even though these are neither legislation nor subordinate legislation. Importantly for soft law as a regulatory tool, people tend to treat soft law as binding even though public authorities know that it is not. It follows that soft law’s ‘binding’ effects do not apply equally between the public authority and those to whom it is directed. Consequently, soft law is both highly effective as a means of regulation, and inherently risky for those who are regulated by it. Rather than considering soft law as a form of regulation, this book examines the possible remedies when a public authority breaches its own soft law upon which people have relied, thereby suffering loss. It considers judicial review remedies, modes of compensation which are not based upon a finding of invalidity, namely tort and equity, and ‘soft’ challenges outside the scope of the courts, such as through the Ombudsman or by seeking an ex gratia payment.

The rise of the regulatory state has been a major feature of modern constitutional democracies. India, the world’s largest democracy, is no exception to this trend. This book is the first major study of regulation in India. It considers how the development of regulation in India has altered the nature and functions of the state; how it is reshaping the relationship between business and the state; how it has called for the refashioning of established legal principles; and how it has raised new questions about the relationship between technical expertise and the rule of law. The chapters cover topics ranging from the foundations of the Indian regulatory state to the form of regulation across different sectors to regulation in practice. Together, the chapters reveal the challenges, promise, and limitations offered by contemporary regulatory practices, and they capture the close if sometimes fraught relationship that regulation must inevitably share with the political economy and constitutional schema within which it operates.

This is the first comprehensive book that explores the subject of federalism from the perspective of comparative constitutional law, whilst simultaneously placing a strong emphasis on how federal systems work in practice. This focus is reflected in the book’s two most innovative elements. First, it analyses from a comparative point of view how government levels exercise their powers and interact in several highly topical policy areas like social welfare, environmental protection or migrant integration. Second, the book incorporates case law boxes discussing seminal judgments from federal systems worldwide and thus demonstrates the practical impact of constitutional jurisprudence on policymakers and citizens alike.“This is simply the best analysis of contemporary federalism currently available. It is comprehensive in its coverage, thorough in its analysis, and persuasive in its conclusions. Every student of federalism, from novice to expert, will find benefit from this volume.” Professor G Alan Tarr, Rutgers University“Wading through the thicket of the multiple forms that the federal idea has taken in the contemporary world, this remarkably comprehensive treatise backed by case law fills a long-awaited gap in the literature on comparative federalism. It combines a mastery of the literature on federal theory with a critical understanding of how it plays out in practice. Outstanding in the breadth of its scope, this magisterial survey will serve as a work of reference for generations of scholars who seek to understand how federalism works in developed as well as developing countries.” Professor Balveer Arora, Jawaharlal Nehru University New Delhi“This book is an extraordinarily handy work of reference on the diverse federal-type systems of the world. It handles both shared principles and differences of perspective, structure or practice with confidence and ease. It will become a standard work for scholars and practitioners working in the field.” Professor Cheryl Saunders, The University of Melbourne“This is a remarkable book – for its sheer breadth of scope, combining detail of practice with analysis of federal principles, and for its fresh look at federalism. With great erudition, drawing on world scholarship and the practice of federalism across the globe, Palermo and Kössler magnificently traverse from the ancient roots of federalism to the contemporary debates on ethno-cultural dimensions and participatory democracy. The book sets a new benchmark for the study of comparative federalism, providing new insights that are bound to influence practice in an era where federal arrangements are expected to deliver answers to key governance and societal challenges.” Professor Nico Steytler, University of the Western Cape

The recognition and enforcement of legitimate expectations by courts has been a striking feature of English law since R v North and East Devon Health Authority; ex parte Coughlan [2001] 3 QB 213. Although the substantive form of legitimate expectation adopted in Coughlan was quickly accepted by English courts and received a generally favourable response from public law scholars, the doctrine of that case has largely been rejected in other common law jurisdictions. The central principles of Coughlan have been rejected by courts in common law jurisdictions outside the UK for a range of reasons, such as incompatibility with local constitutional doctrine, or because they mark an undesirable drift towards merits review. The sceptical and critical reception to Coughlan outside England is a striking contrast to the reception the case received within the UK. This book provides a detailed scholarly analysis of these issues and considers the doctrine of legitimate expectations both in England and elsewhere in the common law world.

What does Israel’s definition as a 'Jewish and democratic' state mean? How does it affect constitutional law? How does it play out in the daily life of the people living in Israel? This book provides a unique and detailed examination of the consequences of the ‘Jewish and democratic’ definition. It explores how the definition affects the internal ordering of the state, the operation of the law, and the ways it is used to justify, protect and regenerate certain features of Israeli constitutional law. It also considers the relationship between law and settler-colonialism, and how this relationship manifests itself in the constitutional order.The Dynamics of Exclusionary Constitutionalism offers a novel perspective on the Jewish and democratic definition rooted in constitutional theory and informed by a socio-legal approach. Relying on a wide range of court cases and statutes as well as secondary sources, the book shows how the definition is deeply embedded in the constitutional structure, and operates, as a matter of law, in a manner that concentrates political power in the hands of the Jewish citizens and excludes the Palestinian Arab citizens in Israel from the political process.Mazen Masri's study is a timely intervention in an increasingly important question, and is essential reading for those who want to understand Israel’s character, its relationship with the constitutional order, and its impact on society.

How much power does a monarch really have? How much autonomy do they enjoy? Who regulates the size of the royal family, their finances, the rules of succession? These are some of the questions considered in this edited collection on the monarchies of Europe.The book is written by experts from Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the UK. It considers the constitutional and political role of monarchy, its powers and functions, how it is defined and regulated, the laws of succession and royal finances, relations with the media, the popularity of the monarchy and why it endures. No new political theory on this topic has been developed since Bagehot wrote about the monarchy in The English Constitution (1867). The same is true of the other European monarchies. 150 years on, with their formal powers greatly reduced, how has this ancient, hereditary institution managed to survive and what is a modern monarch’s role? What theory can be derived about the role of monarchy in advanced democracies, and what lessons can the different European monarchies learn from each other? The public look to the monarchy to represent continuity, stability and tradition, but also want it to be modern, to reflect modern values and be a focus for national identity. The whole institution is shot through with contradictions, myths and misunderstandings. This book should lead to a more realistic debate about our expectations of the monarchy, its role and its future. The contributors are leading experts from all over Europe: Rudy Andeweg, Ian Bradley, Paul Bovend’Eert, Axel Calissendorff, Frank Cranmer, Robert Hazell, Olivia Hepsworth, Luc Heuschling, Helle Krunke, Bob Morris, Roger Mortimore, Lennart Nilsson, Philip Murphy, Quentin Pironnet, Bart van Poelgeest, Frank Prochaska, Charles Powell, Jean Seaton, Eivind Smith.

Implied constitutional principles form part of the landscape of the development of fundamental rights in common law jurisdictions, affecting issues ranging from the remuneration of judges to the appropriation of property by the state. Principled Reasoning in Human Rights Adjudication offers thematic analysis of the use of the implied constitutional principles of the rule of law and separation of powers in human rights cases. The book examines the functions played by those principles in rights adjudication in Australia, Canada, the Commonwealth Caribbean, and the United Kingdom. It argues that a complete understanding of implied constitutional principles requires thoroughgoing analysis of the sources and methods of implication and of the specific roles played by such principles in the adjudicative process. By disaggregating particular functions and placing those functions within their respective institutional contexts, this book develops an understanding of the features of cases in which implied constitutional principles are invoked and the work done by those principles.

In the last fifteen years constitutional issues regarding the rights of gays, lesbians and same-sex couples have emerged on a global scale. The pace of recognition of their fundamental rights, both at judicial and legislative level, has dramatically increased across different jurisdictions, reflecting a growing consensus toward sexual orientation equality.This book considers a wide-range of decisions by constitutional and international courts, from the decriminalization of sexual acts to the recognition of same-sex marriage and parental rights for same-sex couples. It discusses analogies and differences in judicial arguments and rationales in such cases, focusing in particular on human dignity, privacy, liberty, equality and non-discrimination.It argues that courts operate as major exporters of models and principles and that judicial cross-fertilization also helps courts in increasing the acceptability of gays’ and lesbians’ rights in public opinions and politics. Courts discuss changes in the social perception of marriage and family at national and international levels and at the same time confirm and reinforce them, forging the legal debate over sexual orientation equality. Furthermore, by promoting the political reception of the achievements of foreign gay movements in their own jurisdictions, courts play an essential role in breaking the political stalemate.

It is commonly asserted that bills of rights have had a ‘righting’ effect on the principles of judicial review of administrative action and have been a key driver of the modern expansion in judicial oversight of the executive arm of government. A number of commentators have pointed to Australian administrative law as evidence for this ‘righting’ hypothesis. They have suggested that the fact that Australia is an outlier among common law jurisdictions in having neither a statutory nor a constitutional framework to expressly protect human rights explains why Australia alone continues to take an apparently ‘formalist’, ‘legalist’ and ‘conservative’ approach to administrative law. Other commentators and judges, including a number in Canada, have argued the opposite: that bills of rights have the effect of stifling the development of the common law. However, for the most part, all these claims remain just that – there has been limited detailed analysis of the issue, and no detailed comparative analysis of the veracity of the claims. This book analyses in detail the interaction between administrative and human rights law in Australia and Canada, arguing that both jurisdictions have reached remarkably similar positions regarding the balance between judicial and executive power, and between broader fundamental principles including the rule of law, parliamentary sovereignty and the separation of powers. It will provide valuable reading for all those researching judicial review and human rights.

There is growing interest in constitutional amendment from a comparative perspective. Comparative constitutional amendment is the study of how constitutions change through formal and informal means, including alteration, revision, evolution, interpretation, replacement and revolution. The field invites scholars to draw insights about constitutional change across borders and cultures, to uncover the motivations behind constitutional change, to theorise best practices, and to identify the theoretical underpinnings of constitutional change.This volume is designed to guide the emergence of comparative constitutional amendment as a distinct field of study in public law. Much of the recent scholarship in the field has been written by the scholars assembled in this volume. This book, like the field it hopes to shape, is not comparative alone; it is also doctrinal, historical and theoretical, and therefore offers a multiplicity of perspectives on a subject about which much remains to be written. This book aspires to be the first to address comprehensively the new dimensions of the study of constitutional amendment, and will become a reference point for all scholars working on the subject. The volume covers all of the topics where innovative work is being done, such as the notion of the people, the trend of empirical quantitative approaches to constitutional change, unamendability, sunrise clauses, constitutional referenda, the conventional divide between constituent and constituted powers, among other important subjects. It creates a dialogue that cuts through these innovative conceptualisations and highlights scholarly disagreement and, in so doing, puts ideas to the test. The volume therefore captures the fierce ongoing debates on the relevant topics, it reveals the current trends and contested issues, and it offers a variety of arguments elaborated by prominent experts in the field. It will open the way for further dialogue.

A significant part of the world's population lives under some sort of federal arrangement. And yet, the concepts of federalism and federation remain under-theorised. Federalist theorists have, for the most part, defined their object by opposition to the unitary state. As a result, they have not developed public law theories that capture the specificity of this type of polity. Bringing together contributions from leading public law theorists and intellectual historians, this volume explores the foundations of federalism. It develops novel perspectives on the core problems of traditional federalist theory and charts new departures in federalist theory and federal power-sharing. At a time when we look for more inclusive ways of ordering public life, the volume fills an urgent theoretical and political need.

The West's cherished dream of social harmony by numbers is today disrupting all our familiar legal frameworks - the state, democracy and law itself. Its scientistic vision shaped both Taylorism and Soviet Planning, and today, with 'globalisation', it is flourishing in the form of governance by numbers. Shunning the goal of governing by just laws, and empowered by the information and communication technologies, governance champions a new normative ideal of attaining measurable objectives. Programmes supplant legislation, and governance displaces government.However, management by objectives revives forms of law typical of economic vassalage. When a person is no longer protected by a law applying equally to all, the only solution is to pledge allegiance to someone stronger than oneself. Rule by law had already secured the principle of impersonal power, but in taking this principle to extremes, governance by numbers has paradoxically spawned a world ruled by ties of allegiance.

Vigorous debate exists among constitutional scholars as to the appropriate ‘modalities’ of constitutional argument, and their relative weight. Many scholars, however, argue that one important modality of constitutional argument involves attention to underlying constitutional purposes or ‘values’. In Australia, this kind of values-oriented approach has been advocated by leading constitutional scholars, and also finds support in the judgments of the High Court at various times, particularly during the Mason Court era. Much of the scholarly debate on constitutional values to date, however, focuses on whether the Court should in fact look to constitutional values in this way, not the kinds of values the Court should consider, given such an approach. This book responds to this gap in the existing scholarly literature, by inviting a range of leading Australian constitutional lawyers and scholars to address the relevance and scope of various substantive constitutional values, and how they might affect the Court’s approach to constitutional interpretation in various contexts. It is essential reading for anyone seeking a deeper understanding of Australia’s constitutional system.