Download Free El Tribunal De Garantias Constitucionales De La Ii Republica Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online El Tribunal De Garantias Constitucionales De La Ii Republica and write the review.

The book delves into constitutional essays focused on Latin America, with a particular emphasis on Peru. It explores legal theories surrounding the development of human rights, rooted in constitutional pluralism. Drawing from the insights gathered by organizations within the Inter-American Human Rights System, notably the Court and the Commission, this examination extends to its impact on local judicial bodies, including the Judiciary and notably the Constitutional Court. These efforts aim to protect traditional civil and political rights alongside social rights. However, the work also addresses the ongoing challenge of safeguarding emerging rights, such as fundamental digital and environmental rights, while bolstering protections for vulnerable populations like migrants and the LGBTQ+ community. By adopting a holistic approach, the book aspires to serve as a valuable resource for academics, experts, students, and professionals engaged in the study and practice of Latin American Constitutionalism.
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 constitutional adjudication.
Constitutions serve to delineate state powers and enshrine basic rights. Such matters are hardly uncontroversial, but perhaps even more controversial are the questions of who (should) uphold(s) the Constitution and how constitutional review is organised. These two questions are the subject of this book by Maartje de Visser, which offers a comprehensive, comparative analysis of how 11 representative European countries answer these questions, as well as a critical appraisal of the EU legal order in light of these national experiences. Where possible, the book endeavours to identify Europe's common and diverse constitutional traditions of constitutional review. The raison d'être, jurisdiction and composition of constitutional courts are explored and so too are core features of the constitutional adjudicatory process. Yet, this book also deliberately draws attention to the role of non-judicial actors in upholding the Constitution, as well as the complex interplay amongst constitutional courts and other actors at the national and European level. The Member States featured are: Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Hungary, the Netherlands, Spain, Poland, and the United Kingdom. This book is intended for practitioners, academics and students with an interest in (European) constitutional law.
Constitutional review has become an essential feature of modern liberal democratic constitutionalism. In particular, constitutional review in the context of rights litigation has proved to be most challenging for the courts. By offering in-depth analyses on changes affecting constitutional design and constitutional adjudication, while also engaging with general theories of comparative constitutionalism, this book seeks to provide a heightened understanding of the constitutional and political responses to the issue of adaptability and endurance of rights-based constitutional review. These original contributions, written by an array of distinguished experts and illustrated by the most up-to-date case law, cover Australia, Belgium, Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States, and include constitutional systems that are not commonly studied in comparative constitutional studies. Providing structured analyses, the editors combine studies of common law and civil law jurisdictions, centralized and decentralized systems of constitutional review, and large and small jurisdictions. This multi-jurisdictional study will appeal to members of the judiciary, policymakers and practitioners looking for valuable insights into the case law of a range of constitutional and supreme courts in this rapidly expanding field of constitutional adjudication. It also serves as an excellent resource for academics, scholars and advanced students in the fields of law, human rights and political science.
A comparative perspective of role played by three generations of European Constitutional Courts in the process of transition to democracy.
The Max Planck Handbooks in European Public Law series describes and analyzes the public law of the European legal space, an area that encompasses not only the law of the European Union but also the European Convention on Human Rights and, importantly, the domestic public laws of European states. Recognizing that the ongoing vertical and horizontal processes of European integration render legal comparison the task of our time for both scholars and practitioners, the project aims to foster a better understanding of the specific European legal pluralism and, ultimately, to contribute to the legitimacy and efficiency of European public law. The first volume of the series began this endeavour with an appraisal of the evolution of the state and its administration, offering both cross-cutting contributions and specific country reports. The third volume (the second in chronological terms) continues this approach with an in-depth appraisal of constitutional adjudication in various and diverse European countries. Fourteen country reports and two cross-cutting contributions investigate the antecedents, foundations, organization, procedure, and specific approach to constitutional issues throughout the Continent. The fourth volume now compares European constitutional jurisdiction in the European legal space. It examines the structures of the organization, the appointment of judges, the procedures and the methods of argumentation and interpretation, their impact on state and society, their legitimacy as well as their role in the division of powers, and thus completes the picture following the country reports in Volume III. This comparative perspective is supplemented by an examination that illustrates the relationship with the ECJ, the ECtHR, and the Venice Commission as well as their (constitutional) function. Finally, Constitutional Adjudication: Common Themes and Challenges is devoted to the challenges constitutional jurisdiction in the European judicial area is currently facing. The historical, political, and theoretical foundations as well as the basic dogmatic features of constitutional jurisdiction are presented in such a way that the discussion about its role and further development in this legal space is sustainably stimulated.
Judicial Cosmopolitanism: The Use of Foreign Law in Contemporary Constitutional Systems offers a detailed account of the use of foreign law by supreme and constitutional Courts of Europe, America and East Asia.
Why did precarious and collapsed democracies in Europe develop into highly stable democracies? Gerard Alexander offers a rational choice theory of democratic consolidation in a survey of the breakdowns of and transitions to democratic institutions. Through an analysis of developments in Spain, Britain, France, Germany, and Italy, Alexander explores how key political sectors established the long-term commitment to democracy that distinguishes consolidated democracies. Alexander makes a highly accessible rationalist argument about the conditions under which such commitments emerge, arguing that powerful sectors abandon options for overthrowing democratic rules only when they predict low risks in democracy. The author's argument parallels established claims about the predictability essential to the development of modern capitalism. The Sources of Democratic Consolidation outlines Alexander's claim that a political precondition, rather than an economic or social precondition, exists for consolidated democracies. Drawing on interviews and archival research, the author links his argument to evidence from the five largest countries in Western Europe from the 1870s to the 1980s and also discusses the implications for the prospects for democratic consolidation in other regions. Political pacts, power-sharing, and institutional designs, he says, may help stabilize uncertain democracies, but they cannot create consolidation.
"All over the world, in all democratic States, independently of having a legal system based on the common law or on the civil law principles, the courts – special constitutional courts, supreme courts or ordinary courts – have the power to decide and declare the unconstitutionality of legislation or of other State acts when a particular statute violates the text of the Constitution or of its constitutional principles. This power of the courts is the consequence of the consolidation in contem-porary constitutionalism of three fundamental principles of law: first, the existence of a written or unwritten constitution or of a fundamental law, conceived as a superior law with clear supremacy over all other statutes; second, the “rigid” character of such constitution or fundamental law, which implies that the amendments or reforms that may be introduced can only be put into practice by means of a particular and special constituent or legislative process, preventing the ordinary legislator from doing so; and third, the establishment in that same written or unwritten and rigid constitution or fundamental law, of the judicial means for guaranteeing its supremacy, over all other state acts, including legislative acts. Accordingly, in democratic systems subjected to such principles, the courts have the power to refuse to enforce a statute when deemed to be contrary to the Constitu-tion, considering it null or void, through what is known as the diffuse system of judicial review; and in many cases, they even have the power to annul the said unconstitutional law, through what is known as the concentrated system of judicial review. The former, is the system created more than two hundred years ago by the Supreme Court of the United States, and that so deeply characterizes the North American Constitutional system. The latter system, has been adopted in consti-tutional systems in which the judicial power of judicial review has been generally assigned to the Supreme Court or to one special Constitutional Court, as is the case, for example, of many countries in Europe and in Latin America. This concentrated system of judicial review, although established in many Latin American countries since the 19th century, was only effectively developed particularly in the world after World War II following the studies of Hans Kelsen. Of course, during the past thirty years many changes have occurred in the world on these matters of Judicial Review, in particularly in Europe and specifically in the United Kingdom, where these Lectures were delivered. Nonetheless, I have decided to publish them hereto in its integrality, as they were: the written work of a law professor made as a consequence of his research for the preparation of his lectures, not pretending to be anything else, but the academic testimony of the state of the subject of judicial review in the world in 1985-1986". Allan R. Brewer–Carías.
"This book on The Civil Rights Injunction for the protection of Funda-mental Rights. The Latin American «Amparo» Proceeding, is the original version of the text I wrote for the Couse of Lectures I gave, as Adjunct Professor of Law, on a Seminar on Judicial Protection of Fundamental Rights in Latin America: the Amparo Proceeding, at the Columbia Law School in New York, University of Columbia, during the years 2006-2008. The Seminar was intended to examine the most recent trends in the constitutional and legal regulations in all Latin American countries regarding the “amparo” suit, action or recourse– including the old habeas corpus writ and the new habeas data actions or recourses. By means of a comparative constitutional law approach, also with reference to the United States civil rights injunctions, the Course analyzed this Latin American institution departing from the regulation of the “amparo” guarantee established in Article 25 of the 1969 American Convention of Human Rights which entered into force in 1978 after being ratified by all Latin American States. The amparo suit or proceeding is not only an effective judicial means for the restoration of the injured constitutional rights that has been harmed, similar to the reparative or restorative civil rights injunctions in the United States, but it is also the effective judicial means for the protection of such rights and guaranties when threatened to be violated or harmed. This latter amparo suit is then similar to the preventive civil rights injunctions in the United States; “preventive” in the sense of avoiding harm; which, in this case, “seeks to prohibit some discrete act or series of acts from occurring in the future”, and is designed “to avoid future harm to a party by prohibiting or mandating certain behavior to another party”. From this point of view, thus, in a constitutional comparative law approach, the Latin American amparo action or proceeding, is a judicial remedy similar to the civil rights injunctions (restorative or preventive) in the United States". Allan R. Brewer Carías.