by Dario Elia Tosi
In the last week, Italy overcame one of the deepest political turmoil of the last decades. The new Government and the parliamentary majority, which supports it, describe the new institutional layout as the “Government of Change”.
Here is the official blog of the research group on constitution-making and constitutional change operating under the International Association of Constitutional Law. This is a blog open to all. We hope to provide a forum for interaction and discussion on all topics related to constitution-making and constitutional change. Lets share information and analysis of the ongoing developments in our countries and the relevant theoretical debates: lets blog.
In Italy the new Government was sworn in but a question comes up from the shadow: did the “Government of Change” start out by prompting a constitutional change?
by Dario Elia Tosi
Decisions of the majority of the Swiss Voters and of the Cantons on June 10 2018 on the popular initiative concerning the sovereign money (monetary reform) and of the majority of the Swiss voters on the referendum on the law about the risk of money games
by Thomas Fleiner, Professor Emeritus of Public Law, University of Fribourg, Former President of the Executive Committee of the IACL
The voters decided to reject the popular initiative with the lowest turnout (33.7%) of the last 6 years. At the same time, the majority of the voters adopted the law on the risk of money games.
The sovereign decided on this Sunday with two decisions. One decision was on a popular initiative for sovereign or plain money, the second was a referendum on the law concerning the risk of playing games with money.
New Book: Zoltán Szente, Fruzsina Gárdos-Orosz (eds), New Challenges to Constitutional Adjudication in Europe ‒ A Comparative Perspective, Routledge, 2018
by Emese Szilágyi, Junior Research Fellow, Scientific Secretary of the Institute for Legal Studies, Centre for Social Sciences, Hungarian Academy of Sciences
This new book, edited by two prominent Hungarian constitutional scholars, Zoltán Szente and Fruzsina Gárdos-Orosz examines how the most exigent social, economic and political challenges affect constitutional adjudication at both national and European levels. More precisely, the research question was whether the most recent global challenges, such as the world economic crisis, the new wave of international terrorism or mass migration have changed the well-embedded judicial constructions or, in general, the jurisprudence of constitutional and supranational courts.
Zoltán Szente, Fruzsina Gárdos-Orosz (eds), New Challenges to Constitutional Adjudication in Europe ‒ A Comparative Perspective, Routledge, 2018 has just been published
The Transformation or Reconstitution of Europe The Critical Legal Studies Perspective on the Role of the Courts in the European Union Edited by Tamara Perišin and Siniša Rodin (February 2018, 256 p) Discount Price: £52 Order online at www.hartpublishing.co.uk – use discount code CV7 at the checkout to get 20% off!
by Thomas Fleiner
The sovereign decided on this Sunday on two crucial decisions, with regard to the Swiss constitution: The turnout of this vote was 54.1%. This turnout is exceptionally high for Switzerland, because the discussions mainly on the decision of the sovereign with regard to radio and television were strongly emotional. The first decision concerns a federal decision of the Swiss parliament about the financial order of Switzerland (Article196 cipher 13, 14 par 1 and 15 of the Constitution). The sovereign adopted this first decision by a majority of 84,1%; all cantons adopted this decision of the Parliament; however, the sovereign rejected the second popular initiative by a majority of 71,6% against 28.4%.
by Fiona De Londras, Professor of Global Legal Studies, Deputy Head of Birmingham Law School
The Irish Constitution can only be formally amended by referendum (Art. 46). Unlike in some jurisdictions, however, there is no formal mechanism for popular initiative: ultimately only the Oireachtas [Parliament] can propose a referendum, and the exact wording of the proposition put to the People ordinarily comes from the Attorney General. What the current developments in respect of the 8th Amendment and its potential repeal show, however, is that constitutional change in Ireland is not necessarily a technocratic, elite discourse: it can be, and in this case is being, driven by a social demand for change.
by Rasmus Smith Nielsen, PhD student
The article concludes that the Danish Supreme Court in its judgment UfR 2017.824H (Ajos case) has ruled that 1) an application of the general EU principle prohibiting discrimination on grounds of age in Denmark together with 2) direct effect and horizontal effect of article 21 in the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union and 3) direct effect of law derived from TEU art. 6, section 3, would under e.g. the Danish EU accession law constitute an infringement of art. 88 of the Danish Constitution (amendment of the constitution), and 4) the European Court of Justice has according to the Danish Supreme Court, at least, before 1th December 2009 infringed the treaty (currently TEU and TFEU), cf. e.g. TEU art. 5, section 2, TEU art. 13, section 2, and TFEU art. 352.