This insightful book guides readers through the transformation of, and theoretical challenges posed by, the separation of powers in national contexts. Building on the notion that the traditional tripartite structure of the separation of powers has undergone a significant process of fragmentation and expansion, this book identifies and illustrates the most pressing and intriguing aspects of the separation of powers in contemporary constitutional systems.
To what extent should the doctrine of the separation of powers evolve in light of recent shifts in constitutional design and practice? Constitutions now often include newer forms of rights – such as socioeconomic and environmental rights – and are written with an explicitly transformative purpose. They also often reflect include new independent bodies such as human rights commissions and electoral tribunals whose position and function within the traditional structure is novel. The practice of the separation of powers has also changed, as the executive has tended to gain power and deliberative bodies like legislatures have often been thrown into a state of crisis. The chapters in this edited volume grapple with these shifts and the ways in which the doctrine of the separation of powers might respond to them. It also asks whether the shifts that are taking place are mostly a product of the constitutional systems of the global south, or instead reflect changes that run across most liberal democratic constitutional systems around the world.
Dramatic issues of presidential power and executive accountability to both courts and Congress have pervaded the news for at least the last half-century. Political polarization and the election in 2016 of an "outsider" president intent on disrupting conventional governance norms have generated a seemingly unprecedented volume of new legal controversies. This updated edition addresses both separation of powers questions of long standing and many of the hot issues arising in the later Obama years and the early months of the Trump Administration. The authors have wholly revised the text's exploration of the President's "faithful execution of the laws" obligations, significantly expanded the material on presidential authority regarding immigration, and updated the material on presidential regulatory oversight to take account of the latest developments. For the first time in this text, litigation over the Foreign Emoluments Clause makes an appearance. The materials on war powers have been reorganized into two chapters, highlighting how post-9/11 developments have challenged the categorical distinctions between war and peace, battlefield and home front, and domestic and international affairs around which "war powers law" has traditionally been oriented. The book retains its clear structure and historical perspective, along with the authors' emphasis on the ethical challenges posed for lawyers in the executive and legislative branches who seek to address novel separation of powers issues in professionally appropriate ways. A resource website is available at separationofpowerslaw.com. Adopters of the book may view additional information by logging onto the site. Faculty may request login information by emailing [email protected].
Prompted by the events following the 2016 referendum on EU membership and written during the COVID-19 pandemic by one of the leading public lawyers of our day, this book considers two key constitutional principles, the rule of law and separation of powers, by examining the generality, certainty and predictability of law, relations between the different branches of the state, and the mechanisms of accountability within our democracy. Since the referendum and in the light of the restrictions imposed to deal with the pandemic, and the use of guidelines presented as rules to do so, attention has refocused on the relationship and respective powers and competences of the three branches of the state, the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. They have also placed strains on our unwritten constitution that have been unknown in modern times. The role of the courts and of the rule of law, has been dramatically illustrated by recent litigation, most notably the decisions on whether legislation was needed to serve notice of the UK's intention to leave the EU and whether the prorogation of the Westminster Parliament in 2019 was a matter for the courts as opposed to a political question for government. Set against this backdrop, the book answers the following questions: - How accessible is the law and how does it avoid arbitrariness? - How is access to justice protected? - How does our constitution reflect the separation of powers and the balance of responsibilities between law and politics? - How does our democracy enable majorities and protect minorities?
In countries and supranational entities around the globe, constitutional reform has transferred an unprecedented amount of power from representative institutions to judiciaries. The constitutionalization of rights and the establishment of judicial review are widely believed to have benevolent and progressive origins, and significant redistributive, power-diffusing consequences. Ran Hirschl challenges this conventional wisdom. Drawing upon a comprehensive comparative inquiry into the political origins and legal consequences of the recent constitutional revolutions in Canada, Israel, New Zealand, and South Africa, Hirschl shows that the trend toward constitutionalization is hardly driven by politicians' genuine commitment to democracy, social justice, or universal rights. Rather, it is best understood as the product of a strategic interplay among hegemonic yet threatened political elites, influential economic stakeholders, and judicial leaders. This self-interested coalition of legal innovators determines the timing, extent, and nature of constitutional reforms. Hirschl demonstrates that whereas judicial empowerment through constitutionalization has a limited impact on advancing progressive notions of distributive justice, it has a transformative effect on political discourse. The global trend toward juristocracy, Hirschl argues, is part of a broader process whereby political and economic elites, while they profess support for democracy and sustained development, attempt to insulate policymaking from the vicissitudes of democratic politics.
The separation of powers is an important principle of liberal constitutionalism. However, the traditional rationale behind institutional separation can no longer govern the distribution of authority in the modern state. This book develops a new model of the separation of powers theory for the administrative state. It argues for the replacement of the traditional theory with a new model which has the potential to both enhance democratic checks and balances and to legitimise the role of administrative and regulatory bodies in the modern state. Explaining how developments in modern governance have subverted the principles originally underpinning the separation of powers, the book identifies the ways in which lawyers and administrators have sought to preserve these democratic principles in particular areas. These piecemeal efforts are gathered together into a cohesive account of a radical overarching framework for institutional reform. Drawing on examples from the United Kingdom, Ireland and the U.S.A., the book provides both a descriptive and prescriptive analysis of the ways in which our legal and political notions of institutional separation have so far, and (more importantly) may, in the future, deal with the problems posed by the emergence of quasi-public administrative or regulatory agencies. Far from the traditional view of administrative agencies as a threat to democracy, administrative bodies, in fact, can provide a valuable opportunity for reforming public governance in a way which reinforces the foundational principles of democracy.
This book offers a radical and provocative revision of the theory of separation of powers. It argues that, although designed to protect democracy, separation of powers is often used today to undermine it by concealing and centralising the exercise of power by public officials. The theory is then reinvented for the modern regulatory state.
Author Jessica Korn challenges the notion that the 18th-century principles underlying the American separation of powers system are incompatible with the demands of 20th-century governance by questioning the dominant scholarship on the legislative veto. Korn's analysis shows that commentators have exaggerated the legislative veto's significance as a result of their incorrect assumption that the separation of powers was designed solely to check governmental authority.
