Under the Human Rights Act, British courts are for the first time empowered to review primary legislation for compliance with a codified set of fundamental rights. In this book, Aileen Kavanagh argues that the HRA gives judges strong powers of constitutional review, similar to those exercised by the courts under an entrenched Bill of Rights. The aim of the book is to subject the leading case-law under the HRA to critical scrutiny, whilst remaining sensitive to the deeper constitutional, political and theoretical questions which underpin it. Such questions include the idea of judicial deference, the constitutional status of the HRA, the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and the constitutional division of labour between Parliament and the courts. The book closes with a sustained defence of the legitimacy of constitutional review in a democracy, thus providing a powerful rejoinder to those who are sceptical about judicial power under the HRA.

Constitutions serve to delineate state powers and enshrine basic rights. Such matters are hardly uncontroversial, but perhaps even more controversial are the questions of who (should) uphold(s) the Constitution and how constitutional review is organised. These two questions are the subject of this book by Maartje de Visser, which offers a comprehensive, comparative analysis of how 11 representative European countries answer these questions, as well as a critical appraisal of the EU legal order in light of these national experiences. Where possible, the book endeavours to identify Europe's common and diverse constitutional traditions of constitutional review. The raison d'être, jurisdiction and composition of constitutional courts are explored and so too are core features of the constitutional adjudicatory process. Yet, this book also deliberately draws attention to the role of non-judicial actors in upholding the Constitution, as well as the complex interplay amongst constitutional courts and other actors at the national and European level. The Member States featured are: Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Hungary, the Netherlands, Spain, Poland, and the United Kingdom. This book is intended for practitioners, academics and students with an interest in (European) constitutional law.

Judicial Reasoning under the UK Human Rights Act is a collection of essays written by leading experts in the field, which examines judicial decision-making under the UK's de facto Bill of Rights. The book focuses both on changes in areas of substantive law and the techniques of judicial reasoning adopted to implement the Act. The contributors therefore consider first general Convention and Human Rights Act concepts – statutory interpretation, horizontal effect, judicial review, deference, the reception of Strasbourg case-law – since they arise across all areas of substantive law. They then proceed to examine not only the use of such concepts in particular fields of law (privacy, family law, clashing rights, discrimination and criminal procedure), but also the modes of reasoning by which judges seek to bridge the divide between familiar common law and statutory doctrines and those in the Convention.

This acclaimed book provides a topical and contextual outline of the principles, doctrines and institutions that underpin the United Kingdom constitution. The second edition of The Constitution of the United Kingdom has been extensively rewritten to take account of recent constitutional developments, particularly changes made following the 2010 general election. The chapters are written in sufficient detail for anyone coming to the subject for the first time to develop a clear and informed view of how the constitution is arranged and how it operates. The main themes include: discussion of the history, sources and conventions of the constitution; later chapters deal with: constitutional principles, the role of the Crown, Parliament and the electoral system, government and the executive, the constitutional role of courts including the protection of human rights, the territorial distribution of power between central, devolved and local government, and the European Union dimension. In addition, the book offers an analytical discussion of the development of the constitution, its strengths and perceived weaknesses, and of reforms aimed at its modernisation.

This book argues that judges sacrifice individual rights by using less than their full powers in order to appear democratically legitimate.

It is remarkable that 10 years after the Human Rights Act came into effect, and with further reform possible, there are still no clear answers to basic questions about the relationship between the Human Rights Act, human rights principles and the common law. Such basic questions include: what is the Human Rights Act? What is the relationship between human rights principles and common law doctrines in public law? Do traditional public law principles need to be replaced? How has the Human Rights Act altered the constitutional relationship between the courts, government and Parliament in the UK? Public Law After the Human Rights Act proposes answers to these questions. Unlike other books on the Human Rights Act, the book looks beyond the Human Rights Act itself to its effect on public law as a whole. The book articulates in novel ways the relationship between the Act and administrative and constitutional law. It suggests that the Human Rights Act has built on the common law constitution. The discussion focuses on core topics in modern public law, including, the constitutional status of the Human Rights Act; the relationship between human rights and the common law; the Human Rights Act's effect on central doctrines of public law such as reasonableness, proportionality and process review; the structure of public law in the human rights era; derogation and emergencies; and the right of access to a court. Winner of the Inner Temple Young Author Book Prize 2011.

Using a theoretical and comparative perspective, Aileen Kavanagh argues that protecting rights in a constitutional democracy is a collaborative enterprise between all three branches of government: the Executive, legislature, and courts. With examples from multiple jurisdictions, this book documents the dynamics of collaborative constitutionalism.

The European Yearbook of Constitutional Law (EYCL) is an annual publication devoted to the study of constitutional law. It aims to provide a forum for in-depth analysis and discussion of new developments in the field, both in Europe and beyond. This third volume of the EYCL focuses on constitutional advice, an underexplored topic of legal scholarship today, and addresses this situation by looking beyond constitutional law’s familiar focus on the classic separation of powers and the main legislative, executive and judicial bodies implied by this construct. The attention is shifted to mapping and analysing the advisory bodies and functions grouped around and in support of the legislators, administrators and judges at the frontline of the constitutional edifice, which is accomplished through national, comparative and transnational perspectives on constitutional advice from Europe and beyond. Addressing the topic of constitutional advice is necessary to broaden and deepen not only our understanding of advice as a field in its own right, but also as a way of rendering a fuller account of contemporary constitutionalism. Also, the increasing political polarisation across many societies today underscores the need to study constitutional advice on topics of significance in an attempt to bridge divides and end gridlock. This book will be of special interest to constitutional scholars and legal scholars more generally, as well as to political scientists. In addition, government officials, judges and policy-makers wishing to better understand the legal mechanisms and avenues when it comes to rendering or receiving advice in the contemporary constitutional context will find much of relevance. Jurgen de Poorter is professor at Tilburg Law School, Department of Public Law and Governance. Gerhard van der Schyff is associate professor at Tilburg Law School, Department of Public Law and Governance. Maarten Stremler is assistant professor at Maastricht University, Faculty of Law, Department of Public Law. Maartje De Visser is associate professor at Yong Pung How School of Law, Singapore Management University, Singapore.

Constitutional Idolatry and Democracy investigates the increasingly important subject of constitutional idolatry and its effects on democracy. Focussed around whether the UK should draft a single written constitution, it suggests that constitutions have been drastically and persistently over-sold throughout the years, and that their wider importance and effects are not nearly as significant as constitutional advocates maintain. Chapters analyse whether written constitutions can educate the citizenry, invigorate voter turnout, or deliver ‘We the People’ sovereignty.

Although both Canada and the United Kingdom had experienced terrorism prior to the attacks of 9/11 and already had in place extensive provisions to deal with terrorism, the events of that day led to the enactment of new and expansive counter-terrorism legislation being enacted in both jurisdictions. This book explores these changes to counter-terrorism laws and policies in the UK and Canada in order to demonstrate that despite the force of international legal instruments, including the heavily scrutinized UN Security Council Resolution 1373, the evolution of counter-terrorism policies in different jurisdictions is best analyzed and understood as a product of local institutional structures and cultures. The book compares legal and political structures and cultures within Canada and the United Kingdom. It analyses variations in the evolution post-9/11 counter-terrorism measures in the two jurisdictions and explores the domestic reasons for them. While focus is primarily geared towards security certificates and bail with recognizance/investigative hearings in Canada, and detention without trial, control orders and TPIMs in the UK, the use of secret evidence in the wider national security context (terrorist listing, civil litigation, criminal prosecutions, etc.) is also discussed. The book reveals how domestic structures and cultures, including the legal system, the relative stability of government, local human rights culture, and geopolitical relationships all influence how counter-terrorism measures evolve. In this sense, the book utilizes a methodology that is both comparative and interdisciplinary by engaging in legal, political, historical and cultural analyses. This book will be particularly useful for target audiences in the fields of comparative law and criminal justice, counter-terrorism law, human rights law, and international relations and politics.