This book analyses the specificity of the law-making activity of European constitutional courts. The main hypothesis is that currently constitutional courts are positive legislators whose position in the system of State organs needs to be redefined. The book covers the analysis of the law-making activity of four constitutional courts in Western countries: Germany, Italy, Spain, and France; and six constitutional courts in Central–East European countries: Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Latvia, and Bulgaria; as well as two international courts: the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The work thus identifies the mutual interactions between national constitutional courts and international tribunals in terms of their law-making activity. The chosen countries include constitutional courts which have been recently captured by populist governments and subordinated to political powers. Therefore, one of the purposes of the book is to identify the change in the law-making activity of those courts and to compare it with the activity of constitutional courts from countries in which democracy is not viewed as being under threat. Written by national experts, each chapter addresses a series of set questions allowing accessible and meaningful comparison. The book will be a valuable resource for students, academics, and policy-makers working in the areas of constitutional law and politics.

This book provides expert analysis of the impact of international and national courts on the development of international law applying to armed conflicts.

No society can function without judicial institutions. At a minimum, conflict must be regulated and the criminal law enforced. Ironically, though, modern political science has tended to ignore the role of courts in advanced industrial societies, so much so that even basic information has often been unavailable. This book covers three important bases. First, it provides, for the first time, up-to-date material about the court systems - their structures, their personnel, their jurisdictions - of the major democratic nations. Second, it places the courts in their political context, eschewing legalism and stressing their linkages with other institutions and their role in the policy process. Third, there is an attempt to assess the direction of contemporary change, especially how it relates to broader themes of other types of political change.

Through six accessible essays, the author invites students of the law to look beyond accepted American legal practices. One learns why appellate courts always have an odd number of judges, why the power of judges depends partly on accurate court reporting and unitary, "opinions of the court," how common law rules can be unconstitutional, and many other pressing legal issues.

Introduction to and survey of the field of law and society. Includes interdisciplinary perspectives on law from sociology, criminology, cultural anthropology, political science, social psychology, and economics.

Assesses role of present-day Supreme Court in relation to its constitutional mandate and limitations and its historically accepted role. Includes Legislative Reference Service report "Supreme Court Decisions, 1953-68, Which Have Modified Prior Interpretations or Established New Constitutional Principals" (Aug. 7, 1968. p. 253-337).

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.

Why do judges study legal sources that originated outside their own national legal system, and how do they use arguments from these sources in deciding domestic cases? Based on interviews with judges, this book presents the inside story of how judges engage with international and comparative law in the highest courts of the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States, France and the Netherlands. A comparative analysis of the views and experiences of the judges clarifies how the decision-making of these Western courts has developed in light of the internationalisation of law and the increased opportunities for transnational judicial communication. While the qualitative analysis reveals the motives that judges claim for using foreign law and the influence of 'globalist' and 'localist' approaches to judging, the author also finds suggestions of a convergence of practices between the courts that are the subject of this study. This empirical analysis is complemented by a constitutional-theoretical inquiry into the procedural and substantive factors of legal evolution, which enable or constrain the development and possible convergence of highest courts' practices. The two strands of the analysis are connected in a final contextual reflection on the future development of the role of Western highest courts.

This book examines the role of the European Court of Justice in the regulation of the internal market from a competence perspective. However, rather than focusing on the Court's role in enforcing the limits of EU competence in the EU's political decision making, it explores a related, albeit understudied, question: to what extent does the Court observe the constitutional limits of EU competence and its own institutional powers in the interpretation of EU internal market law laid down in the Treaties? The book provides an answer to this question through the analysis of EU free movement case law in light of the constitutional principles that govern the allocation of competences and powers in the EU: conferral, subsidiarity and proportionality, on the vertical level, and institutional balance, on the horizontal level. Why should the Court be bound by these principles? What do they mean when applied to judicial practice? To what extent are they observed in the free movement case law? The book argues that the Court's observance of the four principles has been inconsistent, thereby creating substantive and constitutional tensions in the EU's relationship with the Member States and upsetting the institutional balance of powers between the EU legislature and judiciary. Shortlisted for the UACES Best Book Prize 2023