Talking with the “pouvoir constituant” in times of constitutional reform: The European Court of Justice on Private Applicants’ Access to Justice. Research Paper in Law 3/2003

[From the Introduction]. European lawyers, at least those dealing predominantly with institutional matters, are living particularly interesting times since the setting-up of the “European Convention on the Future of Europe” in December 2001.1 As the Convention’s mandate, spelled out in rather broad terms in the European Council’s declaration of Laeken,2 is potentially unlimited, and as the future constitution of the European Union (EU) will be ultimately adopted by the subsequent Intergovernmental Conference (IGC), there appears to be a great possibility to clarify, to simplify and also to reform many of the more controversial elements in the European legal construction. The present debate on the future of the European constitution also highlights the relationship between the pouvoir constituant3 and the European Courts, the Court of Justice (ECJ) and its Court of First Instance (CFI), who have to interpret the basic rules and principles of the EU.4 In that light, the present article will focus on a classic theme of the Court’s case law: the relationship between judges and pouvoir constituant. In the EU, this relationship has traditionally been marked by the ECJ’s role as driving force in the “constitutionalisation” of the EC Treaties – which has, to a large extent, been accepted and even codified by the Member States in subsequent treaty revisions. However, since 1994, the ECJ appears to be more reluctant to act as a “law-maker.”5 The recent judgment in Unión de Pequeños Agricultores (UPA)6 – an important decision by which the ECJ refused to liberalize individuals’ access to the Community Courts – is also interesting in this context. UPA may be seen as another proof of judicial restraint - or even as indicator of the beginning of a new phase in the “constitutional dialogue” between the ECJ and the “Masters of the Treaties.”

Diálogo Constitucional e Correção Legislativa da Jurisprudência no Direito Tributário Brasileiro

No âmbito de uma democracia constitucional que adota o controle judicial de constitucionalidade, o Judiciário sempre possui o poder de ser o árbitro definitivo das questões constitucionais? O trabalho investiga as alternativas legislativas que o Congresso pode adotar com a intenção de corrigir decisões do Supremo Tribunal Federal, especialmente no Direito Tributário. Discute argumentos contrários à supremacia judicial, especialmente utilizando a doutrina norte-americana, e defende que a doutrina do diálogo constitucional pode desempenhar um papel relevante na interpretação constitucional, pois ressalta o fato de que o Legislativo possui uma importante participação na tarefa de definir o conteúdo da Constituição. Também são examinadas teorias da ciência política que trabalham com a hipótese de que as fronteiras entre os poderes no princípio da separação de poderes tornaram-se cinzentas. Neste sentido, a correção legislativa da jurisprudência pode preencher um importante papel na democracia, pois representa a possibilidade de uma troca de experiências entre os poderes do Estado e permite que interesses derrotados na esfera judicial possam apresentar novos argumentos em esfera diversa.

Nos bastidores do Supremo Tribunal Federal: constituição, emoção, estratégia e espetáculo

A tese busca identificar os elementos jurídicos e extrajurídicos que interferem sobre o comportamento judicial do Supremo Tribunal Federal. A análise é desenvolvida com base nos seguintes modelos decisórios: o modelo legalista, o modelo ideológico, o modelo institucional e o modelo estratégico de comportamento judicial. Ao longo do trabalho, examina-se a influência do direito, da ideologia, das normas que regem o Judiciário, das regras que regem as decisões colegiadas, do Poder Executivo, do Poder Legislativo, da opinião pública e da imprensa no processo decisório do Supremo Tribunal Federal.

Taking the Next Step? Achieving another Bill of Rights

The aim of this article is to explore the recent Bill of Rights debate in the UK. This is deliberately located in the UK’s complex ‘national question’ because of the obsessive focus on achieving a proper grounding for human rights. A new form of national human rights protectionism appears to be emerging and merits careful consideration. The article suggests that it is better to acknowledge and accept the existence of a plurality of nationalisms in the UK in these discussions and understand how an essentially ‘British nationalist’ discourse sounds and works in that overall context. The concern is that the Bill of Rights debate is becoming an inadequate surrogate for the more challenging constitutional conversations that are required, and human rights discourse thus invested with expectations of national renewal that it can never meet and does not have the internal resources to resolve. If the process does go forward it may be better to prepare the ground for a deeper and wider constitutional dialogue across these islands than stumble clumsily and divisively into this territory simply via ‘another’ UK Bill of Rights.

A mutação jurisprudencial da constituição em diálogo

O presente estudo tem por objetivo analisar o fenômeno da mutação da Constituição quando reconhecida pelo Tribunal Constitucional. O estudo se inicia de uma perspectiva mais ampla, que analisa a evolução do conceito da mutação constitucional na doutrina, dentro do universo da doutrina europeia continental, e posiciona-se acerca da concepção de mutação jurisprudencial da Constituição, que parece mais adequada a funcionar como um fio condutor de distribuição de competências no âmbito da concretização do significado constitucional. Em seguida, procura-se demonstrar que a mutação jurisprudencial da Constituição funciona, ao mesmo tempo, como meio de integração e controle das demais mutações, que ganham uma forma concreta e formal. Pretende-se apresentar a decisão do Tribunal como uma síntese formal do diálogo entre as dimensões da faticidade e da normatividade de forma a fomentar o sentimento constitucional. Por fim, com a intenção de propor alguma solução para eventuais tensões e desacordos presentes entre as mutações formalizadas pelo Tribunal Constitucional e o legislador constituinte, acerca de quem deveria juridicamente dar a última palavra em matéria do significado constitucional, investiga-se a chamada doutrina do diálogo constitucional, surgida na América e no Canadá, que tem tomado um enorme fôlego nos últimos anos e pretende oferecer um caminho intermediário, de forma a demonstrar que os atores constitucionais, cada um dentro do seu papel e dos seus limites de atuação, constroem juntos o verdadeiro significado constitucional, devendo a legitimidade democrática ser vista de um ponto de vista circular e material e não linear e formal.

Planning Through Dialogue for Rural Development: The European Citizens’ Panel Initiative

This paper presents a narrative of the operation of the European Citizens’ Panel that reported in 2007 on the future roles of rural areas. This dialogue was located within a wider and recent engagement by the EU with its citizens following rejection of the EU Constitutional Treaty. The paper draws attention to the contemporary rural development challenges in Europe that were debated by eight regional panels as a prelude to a wider European deliberation. The working method of the European Citizens’ Panel is outlined and critical commentary is provided on the interaction between planning through dialogue, EU citizenship renewal, and the shaping of bottom-up development trajectories.

Eunomus: or, Dialogues concerning the law and constitution of England. With an essay on dialogue.

General index, v. 2, by John Winter Jones.

The need for dialogue between the vocational psychological and organisational perspectives on career

As editors of the recently published Vocational psychological and organisational perspectives on career: Towards a multidisciplinary dialogue (Collin & Patton, 2009), we have considerable interest in this particular issue of the Australian Journal of Career Development. This short piece will first present the purpose and thesis of that book and, in the light of them, will then comment on the four papers. The book suggests that to understand the multidimensional and multilayered nature of career, “it has to be studied in a similarly multilayered and multi-perspectival way, and, indeed, it has been” (p. 3). Scholars have pointed out that there is a wide array of disciplines including economics, sociology, anthropology, geography, political science, various branches of psychology (e.g. industrial/organisational (I/O), vocational, counselling), psychiatry, education, organisation studies, organisational behaviour, personnel/human resource management, industrial relations, and more, all of which have something to say about career. Of these, the most influential, according to Peiperl and Arthur (2000), have been psychology, sociology, education and management. These many disciplinary perspectives on career constitute the rich field of career studies.

Vocational psychological and organisational perspectives on career : towards a multidisciplinary dialogue

It has long been lamented that, although several disciplines contribute to career scholarship, they work in isolation from one another, thus denying career theory, research, and practice the benefits that multidisciplinary collaboration would bring. This constitutes a lost opportunity at a time when new understandings and approaches are needed in order to respond effectively to global changes in society and work. This book takes a major step towards remedying this situation by bringing together two key perspectives on career, the vocational psychological and the organisational (interpreted broadly to include organisation behaviour and human resource management). Written by international experts, the book opens by identifying some of the “tributaries” that flow into the “great delta of careers scholarship”, and noting the need to link what are at present separate “islands” of scholarship. It is structured to allow comparison between the ways in which the two perspectives address career development and career management theory, research and interventions. It concludes by pointing to the possibilities for dialogue, and even collaboration, between these perspectives, and suggesting ways in which these could be brought about. The book will be essential reading for career scholars because, with its potential to stimulate new thinking and developments in theory and research and also, importantly, in practice (with beneficial spin-offs for policy-makers), this dialogue could open a new phase in career scholarship. With its overviews of the history, theory, research and practice of both perspectives, the book will also be a valuable resource for students of both perspectives.

Voter behaviour and constitutional change in Australia since 1967

Australian Constitutional referendums have been part of the Australian political system since federation. Up to the year 1999 (the time of the last referendum in Australia), constitutional change in Australia does not have a good history of acceptance. Since 1901, there have been 44 proposed constitutional changes with eight gaining the required acceptance according to section 128 of the Australian Constitution. In the modern era since 1967, there have been 20 proposals over seven referendum votes for a total of four changes. Over this same period, there have been 13 federal general elections which have realised change in government just five times. This research examines the electoral behaviour of Australian voters from 1967 to 1999 for each referendum. Party identification has long been a key indicator in general election voting. This research considers whether the dominant theory of voter behaviour in general elections (the Michigan Model) provides a plausible explanation for voting in Australian referendums. In order to explain electoral behaviour in each referendum, this research has utilised available data from the Australian Electoral Commission, the 1996 Australian Bureau of Statistics Census data, and the 1999 Australian Constitutional Referendum Study. This data has provided the necessary variables required to measure the impact of the Michigan Model of voter behaviour. Measurements have been conducted using bivariate and multivariate analyses. Each referendum provides an overview of the events at the time of the referendum as well as the =yes‘ and =no‘ cases at the time each referendum was initiated. Results from this research provide support for the Michigan Model of voter behaviour in Australian referendum voting. This research concludes that party identification, as a key variable of the Michigan Model, shows that voters continue to take their cues for voting from the political party they identify with in Australian referendums. However, the outcome of Australian referendums clearly shows that partisanship is only one of a number of contributory factors in constitutional referendums.

The constitutional power to make war: domestic legal issues raised by Australia's action in Iraq

The legal power to declare war has traditionally been a part of a prerogative to be exercised solely on advice that passed from the King to the Governor-General no later than 1942. In 2003, the Governor- General was not involved in the decision by the Prime Minister and Cabinet to commit Australian troops to the invasion of Iraq. The authors explore the alternative legal means by which Australia can go to war - means the government in fact used in 2003 - and the constitutional basis of those means. While the prerogative power can be regulated and/or devolved by legislation, and just possibly by practice, there does not seem to be a sound legal basis to assert that the power has been devolved to any other person. It appears that in 2003 the Defence Minister used his legal powers under the Defence Act 1903 (Cth) (as amended in 1975) to give instructions to the service head(s). A powerful argument could be made that the relevant sections of the Defence Act were not intended to be used for the decision to go to war, and that such instructions are for peacetime or in bello decisions. If so, the power to make war remains within the prerogative to be exercised on advice. Interviews with the then Governor-General indicate that Prime Minister Howard had planned to take the matter to the Federal Executive Council 'for noting', but did not do so after the Governor-General sought the views of the then Attorney-General about relevant issues of international law. The exchange raises many issues, but those of interest concern the kinds of questions the Governor-General could and should ask about proposed international action and whether they in any way mirror the assurances that are uncontroversially required for domestic action. In 2003, the Governor-General's scrutiny was the only independent scrutiny available because the legality of the decision to go to war was not a matter that could be determined in the High Court, and the federal government had taken action in March 2002 that effectively prevented the matter coming before the International Court of Justice