Wildy & Sons Ltd — The World’s Legal Bookshop Search Results for isbn: '9781785362699'

Book of the Month

Borderlines in Private Law

Edited by: William Day, Julius Grower

Price: £90.00

Buy

More Information

Lord Denning: Life, Law and Legacy

Welcome to Wildys

Watch

NEW EDITION
The Law of Rights of Light 2nd ed

Jonathan Karas

Offers for Newly Called Barristers & Students

Special Discounts for Newly Called & Students

Secondhand & Out of Print

Browse Secondhand Online

Comparative Constitutional Law

Edited by: Mark Tushnet

ISBN13: 9781785362699

Published: May 2017

Publisher: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited

Country of Publication: UK

Format: Hardback, 3-volumes

Price: £939.00

Convert Currency

Buy

Despatched in 4 to 6 days.

This authoritative three-volume set provides a carefully considered selection of the most important articles to guide research into comparative constitutional law. Topics covered include historical studies of public law in different nations, theoretical accounts of rights and structures, detailed examinations of particular features common to many constitutions, and comparisons between a significant number of domestic jurisdictions. Together with an original introduction by the editor, this comprehensive and timely research collection is an essential resource for academics and practitioners alike.

Subjects:: Constitutional and Administrative Law

Contents:: Acknowledgements; Introduction Mark Tushnet; PART I HISTORY OF THE FIELD; 1. Armin von Bogdandy (2009), ‘The Past and Promise of Doctrinal Constructivism: A Strategy for Responding to the Challenges Facing Constitutional Scholarship in Europe’, International Journal of Constitutional Law, 7 (3), July, 364–400; 2. Ran Hirschl (2013), ‘Editorial: From Comparative Constitutional Law to Comparative Constitutional Studies’, International Journal of Constitutional Law, 11 (1), January, 1–11; 3. David Fontana (2011), ‘The Rise and Fall of Comparative Constitutional Law in the Postwar Era’, Yale Journal of International Law, 36 (1), Winter, 1–53; PART II METHODOLOGY; 4. Oliver Brand (2007), ‘Conceptual Comparisons: Towards a Coherent Methodology of Comparative Legal Studies’, Brooklyn Journal of International Law, 32 (2), 405–66; 5. Günter Frankenberg (2006), ‘Comparing Constitutions: Ideas, Ideals, and Ideology – Toward a Layered Narrative’, International Journal of Constitutional Law, 4 (3), July, 439–59; 6. Pierre Legrand (1996), ‘How to Compare Now’, Legal Studies, 16 (2), July, 232–42; 7. Ran Hirschl (2005), ‘The Question of Case Selection in Comparative Constitutional Law’, American Journal of Comparative Law, 53 (1), Winter, 125–55; PART III CONSTITUTION MAKING; 8. Jon Elster (1995), ‘Forces and Mechanisms in the Constitution-Making Process’, Duke Law Journal, 45 (2), November, 364–96; 9. Nathan J. Brown (2008), ‘Reason, Interest, Rationality, and Passion in Constitution Drafting’, Perspectives on Politics, 6 (4), December, 675–89; PART IV USES OF COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN DOMESTIC CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; 10. Vicki C. Jackson (2005), ‘Constitutional Comparisons: Convergence, Resistance, Engagement’, Harvard Law Review, 119 (1), November, 109–28; 11. Eric A. Posner and Cass R. Sunstein (2006), ‘The Law of Other States’, Stanford Law Review, 59 (1), October, 131–79; 12. Eyal Benvenisti (2008), ‘Reclaiming Democracy: The Strategic Uses of Foreign and International Law by National Courts’, American Journal of International Law, 102 (2), April, 241–74; 13. Mark C. Rahdert (2007), ‘Comparative Constitutional Advocacy’, American University Law Review, 56 (3), 553–665; PART V NONLIBERAL CONSTITUTIONALISM; 14. Mark Tushnet (2015), ‘Authoritarian Constitutionalism’, Cornell Law Review, 100 (2), 391–461; 15. David Landau (2013), ‘Abusive Constitutionalism’, University of California Davis Law Review, 47 (1), November, 189–260; 16. David S. Law and Mila Versteeg (2013), ‘Sham Constitutions’, California Law Review, 101 (4), August, 863–952; Volume II; Acknowledgements; Introduction An introduction by the editor appears in Volume I; PART I STRUCTURES OF CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW: CENTRALIZED VERSUS DECENTRALIZED; 1. Víctor Ferreres Comella (2004), ‘The Consequences of Centralizing Constitutional Review in a Special Court: Some Thoughts on Judicial Activism’, Texas Law Review, 82 (7), June, 1705–36; 2. Alec Stone Sweet (2003), ‘Why Europe Rejected American Judicial Review and Why it May Not Matter’, Michigan Law Review, 101, August, 2744–80; 3. John Ferejohn and Pasquale Pasquino (2004), ‘Constitutional Adjudication: Lessons from Europe’, Texas Law Review, 82 (7), June, 1671–1704; PART II STRONG VERSUS WEAK FORM REVIEW; 4. Mark Tushnet (2003), ‘Alternative Forms of Judicial Review’, Michigan Law Review, 101 (8), August, 2781–2802; 5. Stephen Gardbaum (2010), ‘Reassessing the New Commonwealth Model of Constitutionalism’, International Journal of Constitutional Law, 8 (2), April, 167–206; 6. Rosalind Dixon (2007), ‘Creating Dialogue about Socioeconomic Rights: Strong-Form versus Weak-Form Judicial Review Revisited’, International Journal of Constitutional Law, 5 (3), July, 391–418; 7. Rivka Weill (2012), ‘Reconciling Parliamentary Sovereignty and Judicial Review: On the Theoretical and Historical Origins of the Israeli Legislative Override Power’, Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 39 (2), Winter, 457–511; PART III JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS, TENURE, AND INDEPENDENCE; 8. Lee Epstein, Jack Knight and Olga Shvetsova (2001), ‘Comparing Judicial Selection Systems’, William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 10 (1), 7–36; 9. Mary L. Clark (2011), ‘Advice and Consent vs. Silence and Dissent? The Contrasting Roles of the Legislature in U.S. and U.K. Judicial Appointments’, Louisiana Law Review, 71 (2), Winter, 451–502; 10. Tom Ginsburg (2002), ‘Economic Analysis and the Design of Constitutional Courts’, Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 3 (1), May, 49–85; PART IV METHODOLOGY OF CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW: PROPORTIONALITY AND CATEGORICAL ANALYSIS; 11. Dieter Grimm (2007), ‘Proportionality in Canadian and German Constitutional Jurisprudence’, University of Toronto Law Journal, 57 (2), Spring, 383–397; 12. Jacco Bomhoff (2008), ‘Balancing, the Global and the Local: Judicial Balancing as a Problematic Topic in Comparative (Constitutional) Law’, Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, 31 (2), Summer, 555–86; 13. Moshe Cohen-Eliya and Iddo Porat (2011), ‘Proportionality and the Culture of Justification’, American Journal of Comparative Law, 59 (2), Spring, 463-90; PART V EMERGENCY POWERS; 14. John Ferejohn and Pasquale Pasquino (2004), ‘The Law of the Exception: A Typology of Emergency Powers’, International Journal of Constitutional Law, 2 (2), April, 210–39; 15. Gabriel L. Negretto and José Antonio Aguilar Rivera (2000), ‘Liberalism and Emergency Powers in Latin America: Reflections on Carl Schmitt and the Theory of Constitutional Dictatorship’, Cardozo Law Review, 21 (5–6), May, 1797–1823; 16. Jenny S. Martinez (2006), ‘Inherent Executive Power: A Comparative Perspective’, Yale Law Journal, 115 (9), September, 2480–2511; 17. Kim Lane Scheppele (2006), ‘North American Emergencies: The Use of Emergency Powers in Canada and the United States’, International Journal of Constitutional Law, 4 (2), April, 213–43; PART VI HUMAN DIGNITY: PRIVACY, AUTONOMY AND RELATED CATEGORIES; 18. Christopher McCrudden (2008), ‘Human Dignity and Judicial Interpretation of Human Rights’, European Journal of International Law, 19 (4), September, 655–724; 19. Ran Hirschl (1998), ‘Israel’s “Constitutional Revolution”: The Legal Interpretation of Entrenched Civil Liberties in an Emerging Neo-Liberal Economic Order’, American Journal of Comparative Law, 46 (3), Summer, 427–52; 20. James Q. Whitman (2004), ‘The Two Western Cultures of Privacy: Dignity Versus Liberty’, Yale Law Journal, 113 (6), April, 1151–1221; 21. Doron Shultziner and Guy E. Carmi (2014), ‘Human Dignity in National Constitutions: Functions, Promises and Dangers’, American Journal of Comparative Law, 62 (2), Spring, 461–90; PART VII SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RIGHTS; 22. Katharine G. Young (2008), ‘The Minimum Core of Economic and Social Rights: A Concept in Search of Content’, Yale Journal of International Law, 33 (1), 113–75; 23. Brian Ray (2009), ‘Policentrism, Political Mobilization, and the Promise of Socioeconomic Rights’, Stanford Journal of International Law, 45 (1), Winter, 151–201; 24. Courtney Jung, Ran Hirschl and Evan Rosevear (2014), ‘Economic and Social Rights in National Constitutions’, American Journal of Comparative Law, 62 (4), December, 1043–93; Volume III; Acknowledgements; Introduction An introduction by the editor appears in Volume I; PART I FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: POLITICAL ADVOCACY; 1. Mehrdad Payandeh (2010), ‘The Limits of Freedom of Expression in the Wunsiedel Decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court’, German Law Journal, 11 (8), 929–42; 2. Jaclyn Ling-Chien Neo (2011), ‘Seditious in Singapore! Free Speech and the Offence of Promoting Ill-Will and Hostility between Different Racial Groups’, Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, December, 351–72; 3. Patrick Macklem (2006), ‘Militant Democracy, Legal Pluralism, and the Paradox of Self-Determination’, International Journal of Constitutional Law, 4 (3), July, 488–516; PART II FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: DEFAMATION; 4. Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr. (2005), ‘Defamation in the Digital Age: Some Comparative Law Observations on the Difficulty of Reconciling Free Speech and Reputation in the Emerging Global Village’, Washington and Lee Law Review, 62 (1), 339–53; PART III FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: ELECTION LAW; 5. Yasmin Dawood (2006), ‘Democracy, Power, and the Supreme Court: Campaign Finance Reform in Comparative Context’, International Journal of Constitutional Law, 4 (2), April, 269–93; PART IV FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: HATE SPEECH AND RELATED TOPICS; 6. Ian Cram (2012), ‘Coercing Communities or Promoting Civilised Discourse? Funeral Protests and Comparative Hate Speech Jurisprudence’, Human Rights Law Review, 12 (3), September, 455–78; 7. David Kretzmer (1987), ‘Freedom of Speech and Racism’, Cardozo Law Review, 8, 445–513; 8. Michel Rosenfeld (2003), ‘Hate Speech in Constitutional Jurisprudence: A Comparative Analysis’, Cardozo Law Review, 24 (4), April, 1523–67; PART V RIGHTS OF RELIGION: ESTABLISHMENT AND FREE EXERCISE; 9. Nimer Sultany (2014), ‘Religion and Constitutionalism: Lessons from American and Islamic Constitutionalism’, Emory International Law Review, 28 (1), 345–424; 10. Ran Hirschl and Ayelet Shachar (2009), ‘The New Wall of Separation: Permitting Diversity, Restricting Competition’, Cardozo Law Review, 30 (6), June, 2535–60; 11. Jill I. Goldenziel (2013), ‘Veiled Political Questions: Islamic Dress, Constitutionalism, and the Ascendance of Courts’, American Journal of Comparative Law, 61 (1), Winter, 1–50; PART VI EQUALITY: SUBSTANTIVE AND FORMAL; 12. Paolo Wright-Carozza (1993), ‘Organic Goods: Legal Understandings of Work, Parenthood, and Gender Equality in Comparative Perspective’, California Law Review, 81 (2), March, 531–92; 13. Anja Seibert-Fohr (2010), ‘The Rise of Equality in International Law and its Pitfalls: Learning from Comparative Constitutional Law’, Brooklyn Journal of International Law, 35 (1), 1–39; 14. Carolyn A. Dubay (2012), ‘Beyond Critical Mass: A Comparative Perspective on Judicial Design and Gender Equality in Iraq and Afghanistan’, Florida Journal of International Law, 24 (1), April, 163–211; PART VII EQUALITY: POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION; 15. Julie Chi-Hye Suk (2007), ‘Equal By Comparison: Unsettling Assumptions of Antidiscrimination Law’, American Journal of Comparative Law, 55 (2), Spring, 295–345; 16. Blanca Rodríguez-Ruiz and Ruth Rubio-Marín (2008), ‘The Gender of Representation: On Democracy, Equality, and Parity ’, International Journal of Constitutional Law, 6 (2), April, 287–316; 17. Sean A. Pager (2007), ‘Antisubordination of Whom? What India’s Answer Tells Us About the Meaning of Equality in Affirmative Action’, University of California Davis Law Review, 41 (1), November, 289–356; 18. Robert J. Cottrol (2004), ‘Brown and the Contemporary Brazilian Struggle against Racial Inequality: Some Preliminary Comparative Thoughts’, University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 66 (1), 113–29; PART VIII ABORTION AND REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM; 19. Mary Ann Glendon (1989), ‘Legal Institutions: A Beau Mentir Qui Vient De Loin: The 1988 Canadian Abortion Decision in Comparative Perspective’, Northwestern University Law Review, 83 (3), Spring, 569–91; 20. Reva B. Siegel (2012), ‘Dignity and Sexuality: Claims on Dignity in Transnational Debates over Abortion and Same-Sex Marriage’, International Journal of Constitutional Law, 10 (2), March, 355–79; 21. Gerald L. Neuman (1995), ‘Casey in the Mirror: Abortion, Abuse and the Right to Protection in the United States and Germany’, American Journal of Comparative Law, 43 (2), Spring, 273–314; Index