Highlighting the close relationship between foreign relations law and international law, this impressive book places parliament and domestic courtsÕ engagement with treaties at the heart of its inquiry. It presents a timely assessment of the impact that different rules of constitutional law have on parliamentary and judicial approaches to treaties in four different states (Germany, India, South Africa and the US), thereby incorporating valuable comparative dimensions.

The European system of human rights protection faces institutional and political pressures which threaten its very survival. These institional pressures stem from the backlog of applications before the European Court of Human Rights, the large number of its judgments that remain unimplemented, and the political pressures that arise from sustained attacks on the Court's legitimacy and authority, notably from politicians and jurists in the United Kingdom. This book addresses the theme which lies at the heart of these pressures: the role of national parliaments in the implementation of judgments of the Court. It combines theoretical and empirical insights into the role of parliaments in securing domestic compliance with the Court's decisions, and provides detailed investigation of five European states with differing records of human rights compliance and parliamentary mobilisation: Ukraine, Romania, the United Kingdom, Germany, and the Netherlands. How far are parliaments engaged in implementation, and how far should they be? Do parliaments advance or hinder human rights compliance? Is it ever justifiable for parliaments to defy judgments of the Court? And how significant is the role played by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe? Drawing on the fields of international law, international relations, political science, and political philosophy, the book argues that adverse human rights judgments not only confer obligations on parliamentarians but also create opportunities for them to develop influential interpretations of human rights and enhance their own democratic legitimacy. It makes an authoritative contribution to debate about the future of the European and other supranational human rights mechanisms and the broader relationship between democracy, human rights, and legitimate authority.

Saul, Follesdal and Ulfstein examine in detail the interplay between national parliaments and the international human rights judiciary.

International organizations are increasingly operating across borders and engaging in legal transactions in virtually all jurisdictions. This makes, familiarity with the applicable law and practice imperative for both international organizations and those who engage in legal relations with them. Furthermore, the issue of whether, how, and to what extent domestic courts take into account decisions of foreign and international courts and tribunals in their own decision-making has become increasingly important in recent years. This book provides a comprehensive empirical study of this transnational judicial dialogue, focusing on the law and practice of domestic jurisdictions concerning the legal personality, privileges, and immunities of international organizations. It presents a selection of detailed country-by-country studies, examining the manner of judicial dialogue across domestic jurisdictions, and between national and international courts. The approach taken in this book intersects with three highly topical areas of international legal scholarship: the rapidly evolving law of international institutions; the burgeoning research into the role of domestic courts in the international legal system; and the recent rise of empirically-oriented legal scholarship. Utilizing OUP's International Law in Domestic Courts database, the book presents analysis of little-known cases which have real international significance, illustrating the impact and extent of transnational judicial dialogue in the international legal system. The book provides important perspectives on the evolution and status of the law of immunity of international organizations, and contributes to the understanding of relationships between national courts, and between national and international courts.

In July 2007, the Committee published a report on Relations between the executive, the judiciary and Parliament which analysed the evolving constitutional relationships between the three arms of the state and made a series of recommendations to both the Government and the judiciary. The report in particular focused upon the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998, the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 and the creation of the Ministry of Justice, which occurred during the enquiry. In October 2007 the Government published their response to that report. The judiciary also provided a response that month - their first to a select committee. Both of the responses and evidence transcripts are reproduced with this report. The aim in publishing this report was to analyse the responses and to assess progress made since the original report.

Much has changed in European constitutional law after the Lisbon Treaty, not least the efforts to increase democratic legitimacy by engaging national legislatures and introducing a stricter subsidiary review process, namely the Early Warning Mechanism (EWM). This collection looks at how national parliaments have adapted to their new roles and looks at how the new system has impacted on relations between the EU legislative bodies and national parliaments. A team of experts from across Europe explore the effect of the EWM on the national constitutional orders; analyse the regional impact of EWM and evaluate the new system of scrutiny.