Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T01:28:45.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Democracy as Public Law: The Case of Constitutional Rights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Richard Bellamy

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The distinctive domain and character of public law have become—and in certain respects always were—unclear and, to a degree, contested. As a result, any definition is likely to be to some extent stipulative. For my purposes, I want to refer to public law in two broad and related senses—as applying to a certain kind of body and its functions, and as requiring a certain kind of justification. The first sense refers to the actions of the state and its administration. Of course, it will be pointed out that these are increasingly performed by private bodies and often involve legal activities that have been associated with private parties and doctrines, such as procurement and contract. Nevertheless, government and the administrative apparatus more generally can still be considered as possessing distinctively broad, authoritative, and coercive powers which in various ways make their subjection to the law both problematic and pressing: Problematic in that they play a central role in the making and enforcement of the law, pressing in that this role renders them more powerful than other bodies. The second sense enters here. For the justification of state power has come to rest on its serving the public ends of the ruled rather than private ends of the rulers, and certain public qualities of law have been thought to oblige those who wield state power to do so in a publically justified and justifiable way. Ruling through laws has been viewed as different from rule by willful, ad hoc commands because laws have certain characteristics that render them capable of coordinating and shaping public behavior in consistent and coherent ways over time, while ruling under the law likewise forces rulers to adopt public processes and offers an additional incentive to devise laws that treat rulers and ruled equitably. Again, these matters are far from straightforward. How far laws need to, or even can, always possess the requisite qualities and the degree to which these do constrain power holders are matters of dispute. Yet, that all law has to have some public qualities—for example, that it be promulgated and capable of being followed in ways that make it publicly recognized as law—and that these features formalize power to a degree, is reasonably undisputed. Increasingly, though, and even more controversially, many jurists have wanted to suggest that legality also involves certain substantive qualities of a public kind—that laws must appeal to public reasons that all subject to them can accept as reflecting, or being compatible with certain basic interests or values that are equally shared by all. Such arguments have come to be identified with rights and in particular constitutional rights, which are deemed to set the terms of how and to what purpose political power may be legally exercised. In this way, the two senses of public law come together. Constitutional rights define and mark the limits of public power in ways that can be publicly justified, and thereby ensure it serves public ends. They thereby serve what Martin Loughlin calls the “basic tasks of public law;” namely, “the constitution, maintenance and regulation of governmental authority.”

Type
Part A: Political Theory and Constitutional Reasoning
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 14 , Issue 8: Special Issue - Constitutional Reasoning , 01 August 2013 , pp. 1017 - 1037
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 See Walker, Neil, On the Necessarily Public Character of Law, in The Public in Law: Representations of the Political in Legal Discourse 9 (Claudio Michelon et al. eds., 2012).Google Scholar

2 See id. at 10–12.Google Scholar

3 See Lon L. Fuller, The Morality of Law 33–38 (1964).Google Scholar

4 See Richard Bellamy, Political Constitutionalism: A Republican Defence of the Constitutionality of Democracy 57–66 (2007); Joseph, Raz, The Rule of Law and Its Virtue, in The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality 210 (1979); Waldron, Jeremy, Law and Disagreement (2001).Google Scholar

5 See Dworkin, Ronald, Political Judges and the Rule of Law, in A Matter of Principle 9, 11–12 (1985); Rawls, John, Political Liberalism 212–54 (1993).Google Scholar

6 See Rawls, , supra note 5, at 232.Google Scholar

7 Loughlin, Martin, The Idea of Public Law 1 (2003).Google Scholar

8 See Dworkin, , supra note 5, at 32.Google Scholar

9 See Dworkin, , supra note 5, at 27–28.Google Scholar

10 See Loughlin, , supra note 7, at 114–15, 128–30.Google Scholar

11 See Waldron, Jeremy, Can There Be a Democratic Jurisprudence?, 58 Emory L.J. 675 (2009).Google Scholar

12 See Bellamy, Richard, Political Constitutionalism and the Human Rights Act, 9 Int'l J. Const. L. 86 (2011).Google Scholar

13 See, e.g., Peter Jones, Rights: Issues In Political Theory 72–73 (1994); Loughlin, , supra note 7, at 114–130.Google Scholar

14 See Jones, , supra note 13, at 75–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 For a discussion of Hohfeld's classification of rights and of liberty rights in particular, see Jones, supra note 13, at 12–14, 17–22.Google Scholar

16 See Waldron, Jeremy, A Right to do Wrong, 92 Ethics 21 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Waldron, , supra note 4, at 107–13; Albert Weale, Democracy 12–18 (2d ed. 2007).Google Scholar

18 See Jones, , supra note 13, at 96–97.Google Scholar

19 Jones, , supra note 13, at 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20 See Jones, , supra note 13, at 224–25.Google Scholar

21 Rawls, , supra note 5, at 55–56.Google Scholar

22 See Bellamy, Richard, Constitutive Citizenship Versus Constitutional Rights: Republican Reflections on the EU Charter and the Human Rights Act, in Sceptical Essays on Human Rights 15, 15–39 (Tom Campbell et al. eds., 2001).Google Scholar

23 See Jones, , supra note 13, at 180.Google Scholar

24 See May, Kenneth O., A Set of Independent, Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Simple Majority Decision, 20 Econometrica 680 (1952).Google Scholar

25 Joseph, Raz, The Morality of Freedom 198–99 (1986).Google Scholar

26 Arendt, Hannah, The Origins of Totalitarianism 296 (1973).Google Scholar

27 Jones, , supra note 13, at 222.Google Scholar

28 See Loughlin, , supra note 7, at 1, 115.Google Scholar

29 See Bellamy, Richard, Dirty Hands and White Gloves: Liberal Ideals and Real Politics, 9 Eur. J. Pol. Theory 412, 416–20 (2010).Google Scholar

30 See Beccaria, Cesare, On Crimes and Punishments (Richard Bellamy ed., Richard Davies trans., Cambridge Univ. Press, 1995) (1764).Google Scholar

31 See O'Neill, Onora, The Most Extensive Liberty, 80 Proc. Aristotelian Soc'y 45 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

32 Joseph Raz, Ethics in the Public Domain: Essays in the Morality of Law and Politics 54 (1994).Google Scholar

33 See Pettit, Philip, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government 51–79 (1997).Google Scholar

34 See Waldron, , supra note 4, at 12.Google Scholar

35 See Christiano, Thomas, An Instrumental Argument for a Human Right to Democracy, 39 Phil. & Pub. Aff. 142 (2011).Google Scholar

36 Habermas, Jürgen, The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory ch. 10 (1998).Google Scholar

37 Rawls, , supra note 5, at 3.Google Scholar

38 Habermas, Jürgen, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy 304, 486 (William Rehg trans., 1996); Rawls, supra note 5, at 232–33. For a critique, see Bellamy, supra note 4, at ch.3.Google Scholar

39 Habermas, , supra note 38, at 263, 278–79.Google Scholar

40 Rawls, , supra note 5, at 157, 161.Google Scholar

41 Pettit, Philip, Democracy, Electoral and Contestatory, in Designing Democratic Institutions 105 (Ian Shapiro & Stephen Macedo eds., 2000).Google Scholar

42 See Bellamy, , supra note 4, at 178–208.Google Scholar

43 See Ordeshook, Peter C., Game Theory and Political Theory: An Introduction 245–57 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

44 See Klingemann, Hans-Dieter et al., Parties, Policies and Democracy (1994).Google Scholar

45 See McGann, Anthony J., The Tyranny of the Super Majority: How Majority Rule Protects Minorities, 16 J. Theoretical Pol. 53 (2004).Google Scholar

46 See Tushnet, Mark, Taking the Constitution Away from the Courts 159 (1999).Google Scholar

47 See Dworkin, Ronald, Freedom's Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution 1–38 (1996); Rawls, , supra note 5, at 212–54.Google Scholar

48 See Habermas, , supra note 38, at 238–86; John Hart Ely, Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review (1980).Google Scholar

49 See Kavanagh, Aileen, Participation and Judicial Review: A Reply to Jeremy Waldron, 22 Law & Phil. 451 (2003).Google Scholar

50 See, e.g., Ely, supra note 48.Google Scholar

51 Habermas, , supra note 38, at 279.Google Scholar

52 Id. at 278–79.Google Scholar

53 Id. at 285.Google Scholar

54 See Bellamy, , supra note 4, at 107–29.Google Scholar

55 See Bellamy, Richard, The Republic of Reasons: Public Reasoning, Depoliticization, and Non-Domination, in Legal Republicanism: National and International Perspectives 102, 102–20 (Samantha Besson & José Luis Martí eds., 2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

56 See Pettit, Philip, Republican Freedom and Contestatory Democratization, in Democracy's Value 163 (Ian Shapiro & Casiano Haker-Cordón eds. 1999); Pettit, supra note 41.Google Scholar

57 See Bellamy, , supra note 12.Google Scholar