Over the last 25 years, the doctrine of separation of powers has been established as both a foundational value and a structural principle applied by the courts in interpreting the relationship between South Africa’s constitutional structures. Jurisprudentially, the practicalities and contours of how, when and by whom the separation of powers should be determined has proven to be controversial. Therefore, the past decade has been characterised by heightened political contestation, often resulting in extensive litigation posing thorny political issues. This has had profound implications for the judiciary and raised difficult questions on the very nature of South African constitutionalism. These political contestations gathered even greater momentum and urgency during the early days of COVID-19 in 2020, when the first iteration of this book was produced as a special issue of the South African Journal on Human Rights. This timely volume brings together critical reflections on developments in South Africa’s separation of powers jurisprudence and theory, the role and function of the judiciary through its judgments in shaping the landscape of constitutional politics, as well the implications of this for the consolidation of South Africa’s democratic constitutional project. It makes an important contribution to the debate on the politics of constitutional adjudication in light of the doctrine of separation of powers. This book will be of interest to researchers and advanced students of politics, history, law and legal theory, human rights, and African studies.

Providing the first comparative analysis of African attempts to promote respect for rule of law and constitutional justice, this book examines the diverse and distinctive approaches to constitutional adjudication taken. It captures positive and negative developments, and future prospects for the different models of constitutional review.

Juliano Z. Benvindo investigates the current movement of constitutional courts towards political activism, especially by focusing on the increasing use of the balancing method as a “rational” justification for this process. From the critical perception of the serious risks of this movement to democracy, the book takes as examples two constitutional realities, Germany and Brazil, in order to discuss the rationality, correctness, and legitimacy of constitutional decisions within this context. Through a dialogue between Jacques Derrida’s deconstruction and Jürgen Habermas’s proceduralism, the author confronts Robert Alexy’s defense of the balancing method as well as those two constitutional realities. This confrontation leads to the introduction of the concept of limited rationality applied to constitutional democracy and constitutional adjudication, which affirms the double bind of history and justice as a condition for a practice of decision-making committed to the principle of separation of powers.

In the modern period of American constitutional law--the period since the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed racially segregated public schooling in Brown v. Board of Education (1954)--there has been a persistent and vigorous debate in the United States about whether the Court has merely been enforcing the Constitution or whether, instead, in the guise of enforcing the Constitution, the Court has really been usurping the legislative prerogative of making political choices about controversial issues. In this book, Professor Perry carefully disentangles and then thoughtfully addresses the various fundamental issues at the heart of the controversy: What is the argument for "judicial review"? What approach to constitutional interpretation should inform the practice of judicial review? How large or small a role should the Court play in bringing the interpreted Constitution to bear in resolving constitutional conflicts? To what extent are the Court's most controversial modern decisions--for example, decisions about racial segregation, discrimination based on sex, abortion, and homosexuality--sound; to what extent are they problematic? The Constitution in the Courts is a major contribution to one of the most fundamental controversies in modern American politics and law.

Over the last forty years modern constitutional scholarship has concentrated on an analysis of rights, while principles of constitutional law concerning the structure of government have been largely downplayed. The irony of this interpretive emphasis is that the body of the Constitution contains relatively little dealing directly with rights. Rather, it is primarily a blueprint for the establishment of a complex form of federal-democratic structure. This work emphasizes the central role served by the structural portions of the Constitution. Redish argues that these structural values were designed to provide the framework in which our rights-based system may flourish, and that judicial abandonment of these structural values threatens the very foundations of American political theory.

Recent confrontations between constitutional courts and parliamentary majorities in several European countries have attracted international interest in the relationship between the judiciary and the legislature. Some political actors have argued that courts have assumed too much power and politics has been extremely judicialized. This volume accurately and systematically examines the extent to which this aggregation of power may have constrained the dominant political actors’ room for manoeuvre. To explore the diversity and measure the strength of judicial decisions, the contributors to this work have elaborated a methodology to give a more nuanced picture of the practice of constitutional adjudication in Central and Eastern Europe between 1990 and 2020. The work opens with an assessment of the existing literature on empirical analysis of judicial decisions with a special focus on the Central and Eastern European region, and a short summary of the methodology of the project. This is followed by ten country studies and a concluding chapter providing a comprehensive comparative analysis of the results. A further nine countries are explored in the counterpart volume to this book: Constitutional Review in Western Europe: Judicial-Legislative Relations in Comparative Perspective. The collection will be an invaluable resource for those working in the areas of empirical legal research and comparative constitutional law, as well as political scientists interested in judicial politics.

The fall of New Order Regime under President Suharto saw the emergence of Reformasi (Reformation) and the beginning of various institutional and governmental changes done in the pursuit of democracy in Indonesia. Constitutional justice is fundamental to the success of democratic transition in the country. One of the results democratic reform and constitutional changes after Reformasi in 1998 is the establishment of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia.

The Max Planck Handbooks in European Public Law describe and analyse public law of the European legal space, an area that encompasses not only the law of the European Union but also the European Convention on Human Rights and, importantly, the domestic public laws of European states. Recognizing that the ongoing vertical and horizontal processes of European integration make legal comparison the task of our time for both scholars and practitioners, the series aims to foster the development of a specifically European legal pluralism and to contribute to the legitimacy and efficiency of European public law. The first volume of the series began this enterprise with an appraisal of the evolution of the state and its administration, offering both cross-cutting contributions and specific country reports. The third volume (the second in chronological terms) continues this approach with an in-depth appraisal of constitutional adjudication in various and diverse European countries. Fourteen country reports and two cross-cutting contributions investigate the antecedents, foundations, organization, procedure, and outlook of constitutional adjudicators throughout the Continent. They include countries with powerful constitutional courts, jurisdictions with traditional supreme courts, and states with small institutions and limited ex ante review. In keeping with the focus on a diverse but unified legal space, each report also details how its institution fits into the broader association of constitutional courts that, through dialogue and conflict, brings to fruition the European legal space. Together, the chapters of this volume provide a strong and diverse foundation for this dialogue to flourish.

American Constitutional Law: Essays, Cases, and Comparative Notes is a unique casebook that encourages citizens and students of the Constitution to think critically about the fundamental principles and policies of the American constitutional order. In addition to its distinguished authorship, the book has two prominent features that set it apart from other books in the field: an emphasis on the social, political, and moral theory that provides meaning to constitutional law and interpretation, and a comparative perspective that situates the American experience within a world context that serves as an invaluable prism through which to illuminate the special features of our own constitutional order. While the focus of the book is entirely on American constitutional law, the book asks students to consider what, if anything, is unique in American constitutional life and what we share with other constitutional democracies. Each chapter is preceded by an introductory essay that highlights these major themes and also situates the cases in their proper historical and political contexts. This new edition offers updated and expanded treatment of a number of important and timely topics, including gerrymandering and campaign finance, the death penalty, privacy, affirmative action, and school segregation. The new edition offers: _ Updated and expanded treatment of key cases on gerrymandering and campaign finance _ Expanded discussion of the Court's work federalism and the commerce clause _ Discussions of the Court's new cases on the death penalty, including a discussion of the controversy within the Court about the propriety of citing foreign case law _ An expanded discussion of the Court's recent work in the area of privacy, including the Court's decisions with regard to partial birth abortions and same sex marriages _ An expanded section on the Court's continuing efforts to develop a coherent takings clause jurisprudence _ Full coverage of new developments and cases concerning affirmative action and school desegregation