Constitutional Intolerance offers a deeper reflection on intolerance in politics and society today, explaining why minorities face the contestation of their public visibility, and how the law could protect them. Van der Tol refers to historical practices of toleration, distilling from it the category of 'the other' to the political community, whose presence, representation, and visibility is not self-evident and is often subject to regulation. The book considers 'the other' in the context of modern constitutions, with reference to (ethno)religious, ethnic, and sexual groups. Theoretical chapters engage questions about the time and temporality of otherness, and their ambivalent relationship with (public) space. It offers examples from across the liberal-illiberal divide: France, the Netherlands, Hungary, and Poland. It highlights that vulnerability towards intolerance is inscribed in the structures of the law, and is not merely inherent to either liberalism or illiberalism, as is often inferred.

This volume of essays brings together a group of leading political scientists, legal scholars and political theorists to describe and analyze the body of constitutional law and practice within and upon democratic institutions, in particular examining how constitutional law shapes electoral democracy. Constitutional law and practice is complex and varied and so this volume takes a thematic and regional approach: it selects a range of key theoretical questions related to democratic constitutional design, and offers a range of chapters featuring a diverse range of voices, as well as a blend of theory, qualitative studies, and quantitative methods. Readers will gain a multi-faceted understanding of a phenomenon of growing importance and it will be useful to students of comparative constitutionalism, who will gain a rich array of empirical evidence to stimulate further work.

Constitutional identity has become one of the most important and hotly contested concepts in contemporary constitutional theory and practice. It has been repeatedly invoked in debates concerning EU integration, constitutional reform and revolution, and the spread of ethno-nationalist populism, democratic backsliding, and constitutional retrogression. Yet, the concept's precise foundations, meaning, scope, and dynamics of continuity and change remain somewhat unclear and under-explored. This contemporary and definitive volume aims to address this stark gap. Featuring some of the world's leading scholars of comparative constitutionalism, constitutional theory, and constitutional politics, this book provides a comprehensive, first-of-its-kind theoretical, comparative, normative, and empirical account of the concept of constitutional identity. It will be of great interest to scholars, students, jurists, and constitutional drafters alike.

In Courts that Matter, Sandra Botero tackles a crucial question: Can courts advance socioeconomic rights? Using a rigorous comparative study of the impact of socioeconomic rights rulings in Colombia and Argentina, Botero argues that such decisions can be significantly impactful when courts deploy certain monitoring mechanisms and when legally empowered organizations in civil society are engaged in the outcome. The book includes case studies of landmark rulings on environmental, health, housing, and other socioeconomic rights and charts pathways for broader applicability through comparison with rulings by the Indian Supreme Court. The book demonstrates how Colombian and Argentine highest tribunals have, at times, successfully configured important new political spaces for the effective pursuit of public policy goals, in conjunction and dialogue with other social and political actors. This title is part of the Flip it Open Programme and may also be available Open Access. Check our website Cambridge Core for details.

Today, 189 out of 193 officially recognised nation-states have a written constitution, and 75% of these have been ratified since 1975. How did this worldwide diffusion of constitutions come about? In this book, Wim Voermans traces the varied and surprising story of constitutions since the agricultural revolution of c.10,000 bce. Adopting an interdisciplinary approach, Voermans shows how human evolution, human nature and the history of thought have all played their part in shaping modern constitutions. Constitutions, in turn, have shaped our societies, creating imagined communities of trust and recognition that allow us to successfully co-operate with one another. Engagingly and wittily told, the story of constitutions is vital to understanding our world, our civilisations and, most significantly, ourselves.

State recognition of Islam in Muslim countries invites fierce debate from scholars and politicians alike, some of whom assume an inherent conflict between Islam and liberal democracy. Analyzing case studies and empirical data from several Muslim-majority countries, Ahmed and Abbasi find, counterintuitively, that in many Muslim countries, constitutional recognition of Islam often occurs during moments of democratization. Indeed, the insertion of Islam in a constitution is frequently accompanied by an expansion, not a reduction, in constitutional human rights, with case law from higher courts in Egypt and Pakistan demonstrating that potential tensions between the constitutional pursuit of human rights, liberal democracy and Islam are capable of judicial resolution. The authors also argue that colonial history was pivotal in determining whether a country adopted the constitutional path of Islam or secularism partly explaining why Islam in constitutional politics survived and became more prevalent in Muslim countries that were colonized by the British, and not those colonized by the French or Soviets.

Buddhism and Comparative Constitutional Law offers the first comprehensive account of the entanglements of Buddhism and constitutional law in Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Tibet, Bhutan, China, Mongolia, Korea, and Japan. Bringing together an interdisciplinary team of experts, the volume offers a complex portrait of “the Buddhist-constitutional complex,” demonstrating the intricate and powerful ways in which Buddhist and constitutional ideas merged, interacted and co-evolved. The authors also highlight the important ways in which Buddhist actors have (re)conceived Western liberal ideals such as constitutionalism, rule of law, and secularism. Available Open Access on Cambridge Core, this trans-disciplinary volume is written to be accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Constitution-making is a major event in the life of a country, with constitutions often acting as a catalyst for social and political transformation. But what determines the visions, aspirations and compromises that go into a written constitution? In this unique volume, constitution makers from countries around the world come together to offer their insights. Using a collection of case studies from countries with recently written constitutions, Constitution Makers on Constitution Making provides a common framework to explain how constitutions are created. Scholars and practitioners very close to the process illuminate critical insights into how participants see constitutional options, how deadlocks are broken, and how changes are achieved. This vital volume also draws lessons concerning the role of courts in policing the process, on international involvement, and on public participation.

Nations around the world are facing various crises of ineffective government. Basic governmental functions—protecting rights, preventing violence, and promoting material well-being—are compromised, leading to declines in general welfare, in the enjoyment of rights, and even in democracy itself. This innovative collection, featuring analyses by leaders in the fields of constitutional law and politics, highlights the essential role of effective government in sustaining democratic constitutionalism. The book explores “effective government” as a right, principle, duty, and interest, situating questions of governance in debates about negative and positive constitutionalism. In addition to providing new conceptual approaches to the connections between rights and governance, the volume also provides novel insights into government institutions, including courts, legislatures, executives, and administrative bodies, as well as the media and political parties. This is an essential volume for anyone interested in constitutionalism, comparative law, governance, democracy, the rule of law, and rights.

It is well known that the US Constitution has been amended twenty-seven times since its creation in 1787, but that number does not reflect the true extent of constitutional change in America. Although the Constitution is globally recognized as a written text, it consists also of unwritten rules and principles that are just as important, such as precedents, customs, traditions, norms, presuppositions, and more. These, too, have been amended, but how does that process work? In this book, leading scholars of law, history, philosophy, and political science consider the many theoretical, conceptual, and practical dimensions of what it means to amend America's 'unwritten Constitution': how to change the rules, who may legitimately do it, why leaders may find it politically expedient to enact written instead of unwritten amendments, and whether anything is lost by changing the constitution without a codified constitutional amendment.

How does the selection of judges influence the work they do in important constitutional courts? Does mixed judicial selection, which allows more players to choose judges, result in a court that is more independent and one that can check powerful executives and legislators? Existing literature on constitutional courts tends to focus on how judicial behaviour is motivated by judges' political preferences. Lydia Brashear Tiede argues for a new approach, showing that, under mixed selection, institutions choose different types of judges who represent different approaches to constitutional adjudication and thus have different propensities for striking down laws. Using empirical evidence from the constitutional courts of Chile and Colombia, this book develops a framework for understanding the factors, external and internal to courts, which lead individual judges, as well as the courts in which they work, to veto a law.

Constitutional bargains are seen as cornerstones of democratic transitions in much of the world. Yet very few studies have theorized about the link between constitution-making and democratization. Shifting the focus on democratization away from autocratic regime break down, this book considers the importance of inclusive constitution-building for democratization. In this pathbreaking volume, Tofigh Maboudi draws on a decade of research on the Arab Spring to explain when and how constitutional bargains facilitate (or hinder) democratization. Here, he argues that constitutional negotiations have a higher prospect of success in establishing democracy if they resolve societal, ideological, and political ills. Emphasizing the importance of constitution-making processes, Maboudi shows that constitutions can resolve these problems best through participatory and inclusive processes. Above all, The 'Fall' of the Arab Spring demonstrates that civil society is the all-important link that connects constitutional bargaining processes to democratization.

Liberal concepts of democracy envision courts as key institutions for the promotion and protection of democratic regimes. Yet social science scholarship suggests that courts are fundamentally constrained in ways that undermine their ability to do so. Recognizing these constraints, this book argues that courts can influence regime instability by affecting inter-elite conflict. They do so in three ways: by helping leaders credibly reveal their rationales for policy choices that may appear to violate legal rules; by encouraging leaders to less frequently make decisions that raise concerns about rule violations; and by encouraging the opposition to accept potential rule violations. Courts promote the prudent use of power in each of these approaches. This book evaluates the implications of this argument using a century of global data tracking judicial politics and democratic survival.

With its emphasis on emerging and cutting-edge debates in the study of comparative constitutional law and politics, its suitability for both research and teaching use, and its distinguished and diverse cast of contributors, this handbook is a must-have for scholars and instructors alike. This versatile volume combines the depth and rigor of a scholarly reference work with features for teaching in law and social science courses. Its interdisciplinary case-study approach provides political and historical as well as legal context: each modular chapter offers an overview of a topic and a jurisdiction, followed by a case study that simultaneously contextualizes both. Its forward-looking and highly diverse selection of topics and jurisdictions fills gaps in the literature on the Global South as well as the West. A timely section on challenges to liberal constitutional democracy addresses pressing concerns about democratic backsliding and illiberal and/or authoritarian regimes.

The new wave of populism that has emerged over the last five years in Europe and in the US urgently needs to be better understood in a comparative and historical context. Using Italy – including the experiment of a self-styled populist coalition government – as a case study, this book investigates how populists in power borrow, use and manipulate categories of constitutional theory and instruments of constitutional law. Giuseppe Martinico goes beyond treating constitutionalism and populism as purely antithetical to dive deeply into the impact of populism on the activity of some instruments of constitutional democracy, endeavoring to explore their role as possible fora of populist claims and targets of populist attacks. Most importantly, he points to ways in which constitutional democracies can channel populist claims without jeopardizing the legacy of post-World War II constitutionalism. This book is aimed at academics and practicing lawyers interested in populism and comparative constitutional law.

This comparative study of the constitutional jurisprudence of three East Asian jurisdictions investigates how the rulings of the Constitutional Court of Taiwan, the Constitutional Court of Korea and the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal have converged. The unique political contexts of all three jurisdictions have led to strong courts using the structured proportionality doctrine and innovative constitutional remedies to address human rights issues. Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South Korea have the only courts in Asia that regularly use a structured four-stage Proportionality Analysis to invalidate laws, and routinely apply innovative constitutional remedies such as Suspension Orders and Remedial Interpretation to rectify constitutionally flawed legislation. This volume explores how judges in these areas are affected by politics within their different constitutional systems. The latest developments in Asian constitutional law are covered, with detailed analysis of key cases.

Twenty-first-century constitutions now typically include a new 'fourth branch' of government, a group of institutions charged with protecting constitutional democracy, including electoral management bodies, anticorruption agencies, and ombuds offices. This book offers the first general theory of the fourth branch; in a world where governance is exercised through political parties, we cannot be confident that the traditional three branches are enough to preserve constitutional democracy. The fourth branch institutions can, by concentrating within themselves distinctive forms of expertise, deploy that expertise more effectively than the traditional branches are capable of doing. However, several case studies of anticorruption efforts, electoral management bodies, and audit bureaus show that the fourth branch institutions do not always succeed in protecting constitutional democracy, and indeed sometimes undermine it. The book concludes with some cautionary notes about placing too much hope in these – or, indeed, in any – institutions as the guarantors of constitutional democracy.

Public participation is a vital part of constitution-making processes around the world, but we know very little about the extent to which participation affects constitutional texts. In this book, Alexander Hudson offers a systematic measurement of the impact of public participation in three much-cited cases - Brazil, South Africa, and Iceland - and introduces a theory of party-mediated public participation. He argues that public participation has limited potential to affect the constitutional text but that the effectiveness of participation varies with the political context. Party strength is the key factor, as strong political parties are unlikely to incorporate public input, while weaker parties are comparatively more responsive to public input. This party-mediation thesis fundamentally challenges the contemporary consensus on the design of constitution-making processes and places new emphasis on the role of political parties.

In Towering Judges: A Comparative Study of Constitutional Judges, Rehan Abeyratne and Iddo Porat lead an exploration of a new topic in comparative constitutional law: towering judges. The volume examines the work of nineteen judges from fourteen jurisdictions, each of whom stood out individually among their fellow judges and had a unique impact on the trajectory of constitutional law. The chapters ask: what makes a towering judge; what are the background conditions that foster or deter the rise of towering judges; are towering judges, on balance, positive or detrimental for constitutional systems; how do towering judges differ from one jurisdiction to another; how do political and historical developments relate to this phenomenon; and how does all of this fit within global constitutionalism? The answers to these questions offer important insight into how these judges were able to shine to an uncommon degree in a profession where individualism is not always looked on favourably.

This work is the first systematic discussion of arbitration from a constitutional perspective, covering the most important types of arbitration, including domestic arbitration in private law, international commercial arbitration, investment treaty arbitration, and state-to-state arbitration. Victor Ferreres Comella argues for the recognition of a constitutional right to arbitration in the private sphere and discusses the constraints that the state is entitled to place on this right. He also explores the conditions under which investment treaty arbitration is constitutionally legitimate, and highlights the shortcomings of international adjudication from a constitutional perspective. The rich landscape of arbitration is explained in clear language, avoiding unnecessary technical jargon. Using examples drawn from a wide variety of domains, Ferreres bridges the gap between constitutional and arbitral theory.