Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 7 of 7 items for

  • Author or Editor: Francesco Biagi x
  • Search level: All x
Clear All
Author:

Abstract

This chapter examines the separation of powers and forms of government in North Africa and the Middle East following the ‘Arab Spring’ and shows that most Arab constitutions still guarantee (albeit to a lesser extent than in the past) an extremely high concentration of power in the hands of the Head of State, thus favouring the continuation in office of illiberal regimes. This weak separation of powers is due to different reasons, including the constitutional tradition, the top-down constitution-making processes and the external influences. The only notable exception (at least for the moment) is Tunisia, which is already at an advanced stage in the process of democratization.

In: Comparative Constitutional History
While comparative constitutional law is a well-established field, less attention has been paid so far to the comparative dimension of constitutional history. The present volume, edited by Francesco Biagi, Justin O. Frosini and Jason Mazzone, aims to address this shortcoming by bringing focus to comparative constitutional history, which holds considerable promise for engaging and innovative work along several key avenues of inquiry. The essays contained in this volume focus on the origins and design of constitutional governments and the sources that have impacted the ways in which constitutional systems began and developed, the evolution of the principle of separation of powers among branches of government, as well as the origins, role and function of constitutional and supreme courts.

Contributors: Mark Somos, Gohar Karapetian, Justin O. Frosini, Viktoriia Lapa, Miguel Manero de Lemos, Francesco Biagi, Catherine Andrews, Gonçalo de Almeida Ribeiro, Mario Alberto Cajas-Sarria, and Fabian Duessel.
In: Comparative Constitutional History
In: Comparative Constitutional History
In: Comparative Constitutional History
Volume Two: Uses of History in Constitutional Adjudication
Constitutions are a product of history, but what is the role of history in interpreting and applying constitutional provisions? This volume addresses that question from a comparative perspective, examining different uses of history by courts in determining constitutional meaning. The book shows that there is considerable debate around the role of history in constitutional adjudication. Are, for example, historical public debates over the adoption of a constitution relevant to reading its provisions today? If a constitution represents a break from a prior repressive regime, should courts construe the constitution’s provisions in light of that background? Are former constitutions relevant to interpreting a new constitution? Through an assessment of current practices the volume offers some lessons for the future practices of courts as they adjudicate constitutional cases.

Contributors are: Mark D. Rosen, Jorge M. Farinacci-Fernós, Justin Collings, Jean-Christophe Bédard-Rubin, Cem Tecimer, Ángel Aday Jiménez Alemán, Ana Beatriz Robalinho, Keigo Obayashi, Zoltán Szente, Shih-An Wang, and Diego Werneck Arguelhes.
In: Comparative Constitutional History