To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Buddhism and Comparative Constitutional Law offers the first comprehensive account of the entanglements of Buddhism and constitutional law in Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Tibet, Bhutan, China, Mongolia, Korea, and Japan. Bringing together an interdisciplinary team of experts, the volume offers a complex portrait of “the Buddhist-constitutional complex,” demonstrating the intricate and powerful ways in which Buddhist and constitutional ideas merged, interacted and co-evolved. The authors also highlight the important ways in which Buddhist actors have (re)conceived Western liberal ideals such as constitutionalism, rule of law, and secularism. Available Open Access on Cambridge Core, this trans-disciplinary volume is written to be accessible to a non-specialist audience.
Constitution-making is a major event in the life of a country, with constitutions often acting as a catalyst for social and political transformation. But what determines the visions, aspirations and compromises that go into a written constitution? In this unique volume, constitution makers from countries around the world come together to offer their insights. Using a collection of case studies from countries with recently written constitutions, Constitution Makers on Constitution Making provides a common framework to explain how constitutions are created. Scholars and practitioners very close to the process illuminate critical insights into how participants see constitutional options, how deadlocks are broken, and how changes are achieved. This vital volume also draws lessons concerning the role of courts in policing the process, on international involvement, and on public participation.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is thought to have shaped constitutions profoundly since its adoption in 1948. The authors identify two empirical implications that should follow from such influence. First, UDHR content should be reflected in subsequent national constitutions. Second, such reflections should bear the particular marks of the UDHR itself, not those of the postwar zeitgeist more broadly. The authors examine the historical evidence at various levels to identify and untangle the UDHR's impact. In a macro analysis, they leverage an original data set on the content of constitutions since 1789. They explore historical patterns in the creation and spread of rights, and test whether 1948 exhibits a noticeable disruption in rights provision. The authors build a multivariate model that predicts rights provision with constitution- and rights-level covariates. To gain further analytic leverage, they unearth the process that produced the UDHR and identify plausible alternative formulations evident in a set of discarded proposals. The authors further test the plausibility of UDHR influence by searching for direct references to the document in subsequent constitutional texts and constitutional proceedings. The evidence suggests that the UDHR significantly accelerated the adoption of a particular set of constitutional rights.
Comparative constitutional law has experienced a resurgence in recent decades. Whereas two decades ago the field was focused on the North Atlantic and the issue of rights adjudication, there now exists a vibrant literature on many different jurisdictions and issues, covering a wide field of global constitutional arrangements. This chapter will review the history and rapid progress of the field of Constitutionalism in Context. The most encouraging and visible manifestations of this progress include a shift away from Eurocentrism and the traditional focus on apex courts. It will also identify lacunae in the existing literature and questions that would benefit from further exploration. This essay will conclude by proposing a next-generation research agenda for the field.
In 1970, Thomas Franck asked a rhetorical question of enduring significance: Who Killed Article 2(4)? The reference is to the provision of the United Nations Charter that requires all member states to refrain “from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” Vladimir Putin's gambit in Ukraine, conducted with the rhetorical purpose of eliminating the country as an independent state, is the latest in a series of events that periodically cause analysts to bemoan the end of the post-World War II international order. Will this time be different? Will it mark a definitive change in international law? This short essay will argue that, bloody as the Ukraine conflict has been, the immediate response has been to reinforce rather than reject traditional norms about sovereignty and territorial integrity. At the same time, the invasion and other states’ reaction to it illustrate both the character of, and limits to, authoritarian use of international law.
Authoritarian states have used international law in many ways, but generally have mimicked democracies in the postwar period. Authoritarians are now beginning to introduce normative content into the international legal arena. As compared to prodemocratic international law, authoritarian use of international law places greater emphasis on internal security and has a different style, being more flexible and less amenable to third-party dispute resolution. As authoritarian governments become more powerful in the international system, their contribution to international law is growing, potentially diluting the role of democracies.
Democracies and dictatorships differ in terms of their time horizons. Governments in democracies know that the political system will continue after they leave office, whereas autocrats see the survival of the regime and of the government as being identical. This makes democrats more interested in international legal commitments, which constrain the state even after the government is gone. Further, democracies are subject to greater demands for transparency. Authoritarians, in contrast, are more risk averse. Drawing on these differences, the chapter develops a distinction between prodemocratic international law, pro-authoritarian international law, and regime-neutral international law.
International law can facilitate democratic governance by preserving the norms of reciprocity that make democracy work. It can do so by articulating norms and standards, facilitating the creation of public goods, supporting domestic institutional structures, coordinating reputational sanctions and, on occasion, legitimating external intervention. These tools are limited but can function when political incentives are aligned.
This chapter presents some basic descriptive data on core behavior in international law, including the formation and interpretation of international law, participation in multilateral treaty regimes, the conclusion of bilateral treaties, and the willingness to bring disputes before international courts and tribunals. In every area, democratic governance shows substantially greater propensity to engage international law, relative to autocratic governments.
This chapter provides some concrete suggestions for how democracies should proceed in the so-called post-liberal era. The future of prodemocratic international law will depend on democracies leveraging collateral areas of international law to advance liberalism. This involves an essentially defensive liberalism.
While the global level of democracy intervention has not been particulalry successful, there are theoretical reasons to think that regions are better situated. This chapter lays out the history of regional prodemocratic law, in Europe, Latin America and Africa. It shows that Africa is the region with the greatest level of success, despite relatively poor initial conditions.