giovedì 30 giugno 2016

In response to a magazine article

Today we had a nice conference in Naples. With regard to this event, today "El Món - El diari lliure, obert i per compartir" published the following article:

In response to that, I would like to clarify the following point: although it is true that the name of my colleague Josu de Miguel Bárcena was added at a later moment, I would like to emphasize that he is a very well-known expert in the field and gave added value to the debate, as was indeed immediately acknowledged by the organizers. I personally enjoyed his speech very much. I also read with interest his very detailed article on Art. 50 TEU  published in "Revista de estudios políticos" two years ago. In general, all the interventions were scientific and based on sound research. We all had different approaches, but exchanged our views as it is normal in academic life. The organization was great, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank the organizers for their hospitality and kindness

lunedì 27 giugno 2016

The Dis-United Kingdom
 Lorenzo Zucca

The best still has to come: The United Kingdom will have constitutional headaches for the foreseeable future. Scotland is in pole position: there is no doubt as to its willingness to remain in the EU, but now it is forced to go; when two years ago it voted to remain in the UK, the main argument concerned its relation with the EU. Now, it is ready to negotiate independently with EU leaders. Nicola Sturgeon is the only leader who has a clear idea as to what to do. On the other hand, Brexit leaders are divided and unprepared.

Norther Ireland is also on the brink of a major constitutional crisis. The majority wanted to remain in the EU, and to keep Westminster at arm’s length. The peace is recent and unstable; it is potentially a constitutional moment, in which Northern Ireland reflects on its identity, ties and prospects. A constitutional convention could be a way to appease the turmoil that has been stirred by an unwelcome decision to leave the EU.

Then there is Wales and London. Wales will not sit quietly, when everyone is busy asking for more autonomy and independence. Brexit’s domino effect will be felt in the UK as well as in the rest of Europe. It has already been endorsed as a victory by Catalonian Independence movement, and by the Northern League in Italy. It is a reaction against centralisation of power in London and in Bruxelles. It is a reaction to elites who live in capital cities and rule from their ivory tower.

London is not in sync with the rest of the country. Londoners voted to remain, but they have been outvoted by the rest of England and Wales united. It is not surprising: the rest of England is one of the poorest regions in Europe. The gap between London and the rest is outrageous; but let us be very clear: that has nothing to do with Europe. That has to do with UK domestic policies that wiped away the industrial fabric of the country during the Thatcher years. Little has been done in 40 years to relaunch a stable economic infrastructure in England and Wales. The economic engine was in the City of London: financial success propelled the UK for a couple of decades. But when the crisis hit, the rest of the country suffered enormously.

Eastern Europeans, and Poles in particular, are the scape goats of a situation that was inevitable. The blame is directed to the outsiders, taking jobs away, and wrecking the economy. But the truth is that the blame should be directed to the political leaders, Labour and Conservatives, who allowed the country to become so damningly polarised and economically unbalanced. Brexit leaders have exploited basic anger and hatred: they fed these emotions with an enemy. They told lies about the British Eldorado outside of the EU. The sad truth is that people will wake up soon with the same problems and lesser opportunities.

What is unforgivable is that Brexit leaders are no way near to act upon their promises. They are discussing at the moment the meaning of Brexit: OK, the people want us to leave. But in practice, what the hell does it mean?  Brexit leaders do not know. In fact, we do not even know who will lead the negotiations with the EU. This will take time: a new prime minister has to be selected, and he has to appoint a delegation that will negotiate the terms of the exit. It will take time, but there is no time. The clock is ticking and the people would like to see some results. The EU is also keen to resolve the uncertainty; nobody, in fact, welcome years of uncertainty. Companies, businesses, individuals: we all need to know what is going to happen in the near future, in order to make the best decision for ourselves.

Boris Johnson is now shifting to a much more moderate tone. In essence, he would like to maintain a strong relation with the EU, but without any serious (political) commitment: friends with benefits. You do your business, you make your money and that is the end of the story. Well, that is one story from a viewpoint. What Boris is not saying is that in order to have a strong relation, one has to respect all the rules agreed by the EU without having a say. Also, it means that the fundamental economic freedoms at the core of the market have to be respected: they include freedom of circulation of workers, amongst other things. Being a friend with benefits may sound good on paper, but the practice is often more demanding and complicated.

This will all take a long time. By the time Brexit leaders have agreed about the meaning of Brexit, and have elected a new Prime Minister, and have appointed a delegation to Bruxelles, Scotland might have already reached an agreement in Bruxelles. Norther Ireland might have decided to open a constitutional convention. And Wales will have knocked for more devolution. Those who voted Brexit are now celebrating and singing ‘Rule Britannia’ in the streets. They are still dreaming. When they will wake up, they will have to face the facts: there is no Empire, and Brexit will not solve their economic problems. Immigrants will not be deported, and if foreigners decide to leave, this will not solve their problems either. One day, they will wake up to discover that the Kingdom is Dis-United. 

Lorenzo Zucca
Professor of Law and Philosophy
King's College London
London WC2R 2LS
+44 207 8482316

sabato 18 giugno 2016

The Final Word? Constitutional Dialogue and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Jorge Contesse 
Rutgers Law School

June 13, 2016

International Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 14 (2016 Forthcoming) 

In this Article, I discuss the ways in which the Inter-American Court of Human Rights addresses cases adopting a novel approach to legal adjudication — one that relies on domestic notions of constitutional law carried out by domestic jurisdictions. Most scholarship on the inter-American human rights system assumes a top-down approach, whereby the Court merely dictates what countries must do. I argue that a new, bottom-up approach is in place and, further, is required to advance the Court’s legitimacy, especially in the face of criticism by countries, legal scholars and advocates for the Court’s decisions as an illegitimate intervention into domestic affairs. To this end, I critically examine the conventionality control doctrine, whereby domestic judges are expected to decide as if they were “inter-American human rights judges,” and I discuss two decisions that shed light on how the Inter-American Court could use a bottom-up model of constitutional dialogue with domestic jurisdictions.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 29

Keywords: Inter-American Court of Human Rights, conventionality control, judicial dialogue

venerdì 17 giugno 2016

Special Issue on TTIP Leaks - EJRR‏

What do the TTIP leaks mean for the on-going negotiations and future agreement? 

While the TTIP leaks are not the first leak since the inception of the negotiation in 2013, they revealed for the first time the US negotiating position regarding certain chapters of the TTIP draft agreement. As such, the TTIP leaks provide an unprecedented opportunity not only to analyse the contrasting positions of the EU and US on several issues in the on-going negotiations, but also to test the veracity of the competing narratives devised by opponents and proponents of the agreement.

This symposium of the European Journal of Risk Regulation provides a timely analysis of most of the documents released and contextualises them within the broader, on-going negotiations.
It contains 10 research-based opinion pieces by leading academics and practitioners who have been closely following the negotiations in their respective areas of expertise, such as international regulatory cooperation, pharmaceuticals, food safety, agriculture and geographical indications, financial regulations as well as sustainable development.

It is available in free download:

Best wishes,

Alberto Alemanno

Sabino Cassese - La diffusione della giustizia costituzionale nel mondo - Trento, 10 maggio 2016

Università degli Studi di Trento - Facoltà di Giurisprudenza
Incontri di Diritto pubblico a.a. 2015-2016
Lectio magistralis del Prof. Sabino Cassese

Intervista Prof. Cassese, Presente e futuro della formazione giuridica: a colloquio con il professor Sabino Cassese.

Better together or happy apart? Independence Movements in Europe

19 November 2014 - Panel discussion with Steven Blockmans, Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), Eve Hepburn, University of Edinburgh, Nico Krisch, Hertie School, Barcelona Institute of International Studies (IBEI),and Jaume López, Universitat Pompeu Fabra Barcelona. Moderation: Mark Dawson, Hertie School In partnership with the Public Diplomacy Council of Catalonia (DIPLOCAT).

Full video:

III Sesión de los Encuentros ¡Escolta Espanya, Escucha Cataluña!

taken from:

"Estas Jornadas, organizadas por la Fundación José Ortega y Gasset - Gregorio Marañón, pretenden constituirse en un “lugar de encuentro” que haga posible escuchar las distintas voces, opiniones y perspectivas para, desde el diálogo sereno y pausado, analizar con rigor esta realidad, la cual no entendemos necesariamente como un problema, aunque no se nos ocultan los retos que plantea, sino, de igual modo que Ortega comprendía las crisis históricas, como un momento de “cambio intenso y
hondo” que no siempre tiene que ser a peor sino que puede ser también a mejor."

III Sesión de los Encuentros ¡Escolta Espanya, Escucha Cataluña!

Catalunya y España: ¿es necesaria una nueva articulación constitucional?
Fecha: 16 de junio de 2016. 9:30-14:00 horas.
Lugar de celebración: sede de la Fundación Ortega-Marañón (C/ Fortuny, 53. 28010
Moderador: Santiago Muñoz Machado, catedrático de Derecho Administrativo de
la Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Miguel Herrero y Rodríguez de Miñón, consejero de Estado y miembro de la
Comisión que elaboró la Constitución de 1978
Santiago Vidal i Marsal, jurista y senador *
Teresa Freixes Sanjuán, catedrática de Derecho Constitucional de la Universitat
Autònoma de Barcelona
Gregorio Cámara Villar, catedrático de Derecho Constitucional de la Universidad de
Granada y diputado 
Maribel González Pascual, profesora de Derecho Constitucional de la Universitat
Pompeu Fabra
Coordinadora y relatora: Argelia Queralt Jiménez, profesora de Derecho
Constitucional de la Universitat de Barcelona

full video:

full program:

Convegno annuale "Gruppo di Pisa", Cos'è un diritto fondamentale? 10-11 giugno 2016

Convegno annuale dell’Associazione sul tema “Cos’è un diritto fondamentale?” (Università degli studi di Cassino e del Lazio Meridionale, Via Sant’Angelo s.n.c., campus Folcara, Palazzo Studi).
Di seguito le relazioni:

Marco Dani, Libertà personale e incriminazione penale: studio sulla portata garantista dei diritti fondamentali

Elettra Stradella, I diritti fondamentali nelle Corti

Benedetta Vimercati, Il diritto ai beni vitali

Vincenzo Baldini, Che cosa è un diritto fondamentale

Giorgio Repetto, Il diritto alla cultura

Roberto Cherchi, I diritti dello straniero e la democrazia

full video:

lunedì 13 giugno 2016

Comparative Constitutional Rights of Children

Warren Binford 
Willamette University College of Law

June 9, 2016

Max Planck Encyclopedia of Comparative Constitutional Law, 2016 

The origins and import of the constitutional recognition of children’s rights can be traced through some of the most important legal documents of the last 800 years, including the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, and the United States Bill of Rights. Both human rights and the cultural and historical weight accorded to the recognition of rights through constitutional expression are derived from these documents and the values they embodied. But it was the intersection of the more recent rise of international recognition of children’s rights in the global community during the 20th century with that historical precedent of embedding legal and political rights within national constitutions that laid a fertile foundation for the widespread constitutionalization of children’s rights in numerous countries around the world since 1989. Factor in decolonialization and the collapse of the Soviet Bloc -- providing an expansion in recognition of rights-holding populations and opportunities to establish new governments and draft new constitutions -- and it becomes clear that children’s rights advocates were provided the perfect moment in history to domesticate what had become nearly universal recognition of children as rights holders -- at least in the international community. This article was prepared for the Max Planck Encyclopedia of Comparative Constitutional Law and provides a comparative overview of the constitutionalization of children's rights around the world over the past century.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 23

Keywords: children's rights, constitutions, international human rights, comparative law