Human Rights and Judicial Review: A Comparative Perspective collects, in one volume, a basic description of the most important principles and methods of analysis followed by the major Courts enforcing constitutional Bills of Rights around the world. The Courts include the Supreme Courts of Japan, India, Canada and the United States, the Constitutional Courts of Germany and Italy and the European Court of Human Rights. Each chapter is devoted to an analysis of the substantive jurisprudence developed by these Courts to determine whether a challenged law is constitutional or not, and is written by members of these Courts who have had a prior academic career. The book highlights the similarities and differences in the analytical methods used by these courts in determining whether or not someone's constitutional rights have been violated. Students and scholars of constitutional law and human rights, judges and advocates engaged in constitutional litigation will find the book a unique and valuable resource.

Offering full coverage of major subthemes and subfields within political science this reference handbook includes entries on topics from theory and methodology to international relations and institutions.

Drawing on the rich resources of the ten-volume series of The Oxford Handbooks of Political Science, this one-volume distillation provides a comprehensive overview of all the main branches of contemporary political science: political theory; political institutions; political behavior; comparative politics; international relations; political economy; law and politics; public policy; contextual political analysis; and political methodology. Sixty-seven of the top political scientists worldwide survey recent developments in those fields and provide penetrating introductions to exciting new fields of study. Following in the footsteps of the New Handbook of Political Science edited by Robert Goodin and Hans-Dieter Klingemann a decade before, this Oxford Handbook will become an indispensable guide to the scope and methods of political science as a whole. It will serve as the reference book of record for political scientists and for those following their work for years to come.

In Russia, as the confrontation over the constitutional distribution of authority raged, Boris Yeltsin's economic program regularly wended its way in and out of the Constitutional Court until Yeltsin finally suspended that court in the aftermath of his clash with the hard-line parliament. In Europe, French and German legislators and executives now routinely alter desired policies in response to or in anticipation of the pronouncements of constitutional courts. In Latin America and Africa, courts are--or will be-- important participants in ongoing efforts to establish constitutional rules and policies protect new or fragile democracies from the threats of military intervention, ethnic conflict, and revolution. This global expansion of judicial power, or judicialization of politics is accompanied by an increasing domination of negotiating or decision making arenas by quasi- judicial procedures. For better or for worse, the judicialization of politics has become one of the most significant trends of the end of the millenium. In this book, political scientists, legal scholars, and judges around the world trace the intellectual origins of this trend, describe its occurence--or lack of occurence--in specific nations, analyze the circumstances and conditions that promote or retard judicialization, and evaluate the phenomenon from a variety of intellectual and ideological perspectives.

This book unites scholarship on law and politics with compliance research in the EU to shed light on the political role of a neglected dimension of litigation in the EU: the political role of governmental actions for annulment. The book does not portray national governments as passive actors within the EU’s judicial arena. Instead it focuses on cases in which national governments turn to the Court of Justice to litigate against the European Commission, and provides several answers to the question of why EU member state governments take this decision. Governments hope, on the one hand, to evade costly domestic adjustments where the Commission uses administrative acts to interfere with domestic policy application. On the other hand, governments hope to provoke judicial law-making to influence the long-term development of EU administrative law and sectoral regulation. The book will be of particular interest to political scientists and legal scholars. .

This book investigates judicial deference to the administration in judicial review, a concept and legal practice that can be found to a greater or lesser degree in every constitutional system. In each system, deference functions differently, because the positioning of the judiciary with regard to the separation of powers, the role of the courts as a mechanism of checks and balances, and the scope of judicial review differ. In addition, the way deference works within the constitutional system itself is complex, multi-faceted and often covert. Although judicial deference to the administration is a topical theme in comparative administrative law, a general examination of national systems is still lacking. As such, a theoretical and empirical review is called for. Accordingly, this book presents national reports from 15 jurisdictions, ranging from Argentina, Canada and the US, to the EU. Constituting the outcome of the 20th General Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law, held in Fukuoka, Japan in July 2018, it offers a valuable and unique resource for the study of comparative administrative law.

The study of comparative public policy reveals the intensely political nature of policy choices. While policy analysts often look to policy successes and failures outside their borders to draw valuable lessons and insights, cultural, economic, political, and institutional conditions vary from country to country and strongly affect how policy analysis is ultimately used. By combining a conceptual discussion of policy making with an examination of seven specific policy areas, Jessica Adolino and Charles Blake show how politics—in the realm of the environment, education, taxation, economics, immigration, health care, and social welfare—shapes policy choices. The second edition of Comparing Public Policies has been revised and updated to reflect the most recent political and policy developments. This new edition expands coverage of the internationalization of domestic policy making by including a European Union case study in each issue area, along with further discussion of the role of international interest groups in the policy process. The seven policy chapters have been revised and updated to examine current issues in the United States, Japan, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, and the European Union, such as: the heightened calls for immigration policy reform the return to higher budget deficits in several countries the efforts to lower tax rates in countries with falling expenditures and in countries with rising spending levels the often unsuccessful attempts to control increasing health care costs in countries with aging populations the spirited debate over the future role of the welfare state in an increasingly globalized economy the, at times, divergent education reform debates regarding the role of assessment and calls for decentralization the uneven environmental performance in the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions Chapters include analyses of crossnational trends—past and present—and a final chapter reexamines the internationalization of public policy in industrialized countries. Useful pedagogical features have been incorporated throughout the text, including "In Depth" boxes that offer detailed discussion of the political process or analytical techniques, and "Country At-a-Glance" boxes that provide quick reference to political institutions. A wealth of recent data is displayed in numerous tables and a glossary gives students a practical guide to terminology.

Whether examining election outcomes, the legal status of terrorism suspects, or if (or how) people can be sentenced to death, a judge in a modern democracy assumes a role that raises some of the most contentious political issues of our day. But do judges even have a role beyond deciding the disputes before them under law? What are the criteria for judging the justices who write opinions for the United States Supreme Court or constitutional courts in other democracies? These are the questions that one of the world's foremost judges and legal theorists, Aharon Barak, poses in this book. In fluent prose, Barak sets forth a powerful vision of the role of the judge. He argues that this role comprises two central elements beyond dispute resolution: bridging the gap between the law and society, and protecting the constitution and democracy. The former involves balancing the need to adapt the law to social change against the need for stability; the latter, judges' ultimate accountability, not to public opinion or to politicians, but to the "internal morality" of democracy. Barak's vigorous support of "purposive interpretation" (interpreting legal texts--for example, statutes and constitutions--in light of their purpose) contrasts sharply with the influential "originalism" advocated by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. As he explores these questions, Barak also traces how supreme courts in major democracies have evolved since World War II, and he guides us through many of his own decisions to show how he has tried to put these principles into action, even under the burden of judging on terrorism.