Bøger i Hart Studies in Comparative Public Law serien

This book is the first volume to unite theoretical and practical insights into the protection of human rights by legislatures from a number of domestic jurisdictions, international organisations, and leading scholars.

The recognition and enforcement of legitimate expectations by courts has been a striking feature of English law since R v North and East Devon Health Authority; ex parte Coughlan [2001] 3 QB 213. Although the substantive form of legitimate expectation adopted in Coughlan was quickly accepted by English courts and received a generally favourable response from public law scholars, the doctrine of that case has largely been rejected in other common law jurisdictions. The central principles of Coughlan have been rejected by courts in common law jurisdictions outside the UK for a range of reasons, such as incompatibility with local constitutional doctrine, or because they mark an undesirable drift towards merits review. The sceptical and critical reception to Coughlan outside England is a striking contrast to the reception the case received within the UK. This book provides a detailed scholarly analysis of these issues and considers the doctrine of legitimate expectations both in England and elsewhere in the common law world.

This book is the first volume to unite theoretical and practical insights into the protection of human rights by legislatures from a number of domestic jurisdictions, international organisations, and leading scholars.

Entick v Carrington is one of the canons of English public law and in 2015 it is 250 years old. In 1762 the Earl of Halifax, one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, despatched Nathan Carrington and three other of the King's messengers to John Entick's house in Stepney. They broke into his house, seizing his papers and causing significant damage. Why? Because he was said to have written seditious papers published in the Monitor. Entick sued Carrington and the other messengers for trespass. The defendants argued that the Earl of Halifax had given them legal authority to act as they had. Lord Camden ruled firmly in Entick's favour, holding that the warrant of a Secretary of State could not render lawful actions such as these which were otherwise unlawful. The case is a canonical statement of the common law's commitment to the constitutional principle of the rule of law. In this collection, leading public lawyers reflect on the history of the case, the enduring importance of the legal principles for which it stands, and the broader implications of Entick v Carrington 250 years on.Winner of the American Society for Legal History Sutherland Prize 2016.

In 2007 the International Association of Constitutional Law established an Interest Group to conduct a survey of the use of foreign precedents by Supreme and Constitutional Courts. This results of the survey, presented here, gives us the best evidence yet of the existence, and extent, of a transnational constitutional dialogue between courts.

Constitutionalising Secession critically analyses conceptions of constitutional order implicit in the leading models of secession, and takes as a leading case-study the judicial and legislative response to secession in Canada.

In 2007 the International Association of Constitutional Law established an Interest Group to conduct a survey of the use of foreign precedents by Supreme and Constitutional Courts. This results of the survey, presented here, gives us the best evidence yet of the existence, and extent, of a transnational constitutional dialogue between courts.

The essays in this book provide an in-depth examination of normative agreements through the prism of national constitutional norms.

This book offers a comprehensive study of Israeli constitutional law that moves from constitution-making to specific areas of contestation including state/religion relations, national security, social rights, and structural questions of judicial review.