Of Eureka Moments and Magic Barometers: Freedom of Religion as the “First” Freedom in the Canadian Constitutional Context

"La liberté de religion, souvent reconnue comme étant la « première liberté » dans de nombreuses traditions juridiques, reflète également les différentes conceptions de la place de l'individu et de la communauté dans la société. Cet article examinera la liberté de religion dans le contexte constitutionnel canadien. Nous avons choisi d'étudier la liberté de religion dans trois vagues successives : avant l'entrée en vigueur de la Déclaration canadienne des droits, sous la Déclaration canadienne des droits; et enfin, après l'entrée en vigueur de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés. De plus, l'accommodement ainsi que de la proportionnalité de la liberté de religion d'un individu sera également traité. Ainsi que nous le démontrerons, la liberté de religion a engendré un repositionnement de l'individu face aux intérêts de la communauté ainsi qu'une réinterprétation des justifications menant à la sauvegarde de ces croyances."

Getting to the Bottom of Meech Lake: A Discussion of Some Recent Writings on the 1987 Constitutional Accord

Publié par la Revue de droit d'Ottawa.

Judicial Creativity in Constitutional Interpretation

The focus of study in this thesis is on the necessity and extent of judicial creativity in interpreting provisions in certain crucial areas in the Constitution of India. Judicial innovation was essential to adapt the constitutional provisions to modern changed context. Creativity of the Court has been mainly in the creation and introduction of certain new concepts not found in any specific provision of the Constitution which, but were essential for its meaningful interpretation.Independence of the judiciary, basic structure and certain elements of social justice cherished as ideal by the makers of the Constitution are some such concepts infused into the Constitution by the judiciary. The second aspect of creativity lies in the attempt of the Court to construe provisions in the Constitution with a view to upholding and maintaining the concepts so infused into the Constitution. Introduction of those concepts into the Constitution was necessary and is justified. all important features of the Constitution like democratic form of government, federal structure, judicial review, independence of judiciary and rule of law were thus included in the doctrine to prevent their alteration by amendments.As a result of such a construction, the nature of those directive principles itself has changed. They ceased to be mere directives for state action but became mandate for it. If left to legislative or executive will for their implementation, the directives would have remained enforceable as ordinary right.To conclude, notwithstanding the errors committed by the Supreme Court in construing the provisions in the above areas, they stand testimony to its creative and innovative response in interpreting the Constitution. If this trend is continued, it will be possible to achieve through the judicial process, maintenance of independence of the judiciary, avoidance of destruction of the Constitution through the process of amendment and realisation of social justice envisaged in the directive principles. It can be hoped that the Court would maintain its energetic and vibrant mind and rise up to the occasions and extend the same to other areas in future.

International Law as a Source of Constitutional Law

This article has the purpose to prove that the Customary International Law and the Conventional International Law are sources of Constitutional Law. First, it analyses the matter of the relations between International Law and National or Domestic law according with the theories dualism and monist and international decisions. Then, it studies the reception and the hierarchy of International Customary and Conventional Law to Domestic Law including Constitution. This matter has been studied according with several Constitutions and the international doctrine. Then, it considers the constitutional regulations about international law in the Constitution of the Republic of Colombia. The general conclusion is that International Law is incorporated in domestic law according with the Constitution of each country. But every state has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of International Law, and it may not invoke provisions in its Constitutions or its Laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty. Accordingly, state practice and decided cases have established this provision, and the same rule is established in articles 27 and 46 of the Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties of 1969.

The rights to a hearing and to a lawful judge in the spanish constitutional system

Right to Audience and Right to a Lawful Judge are presumed to be two of the most important guaranties for the rule of law. Both liberties are established in the Spanish Constitution of 1978 as “fundamental rights”, and they are included as a part of a most generic right: the right to due process of law. Along this text, I will try to show its content and significance, according to the sentences of the Spanish “Tribunal Constitucional”, passed through more than 25 years.

Constitutional judges (guarantee of the Constitution and responsibility)

My aim in this paper is to propose a reflection on the position and the importance that the constitutional judge has in the legal systems of contemporary constitutionalism. The figure of the judge responsible of protecting the Constitution is a key institution, without which we cannot understand the laws of constitutional democracies, their current lines of development, and the guarantee of rights and freedoms that constitute the normative core of these systems. Moreover, the reflection on the exercise of the powers of the judge, its scope and its justification is an important part of contemporary legal discussion, still relevant, albeit not exclusively - in the field of legal philosophy. The object of attention of my reflection is the judge who has the power of judicial review, in a scheme of defense of the Constitution, regardless the specific ways of this defense.

La libertad personal y la pena privativa de la libertad desde la interculturalidad: una aproximación a los fines de la pena desde la interculturalidad

En la presente investigación sobre la interculturalidad de la libertad y la pena privativa de la libertad, existieron dificultades, por una parte, no encontramos literatura sea occidental o andina que se hayan preocupado por este diálogo; y, por otra, existen trabajos que ven a las dos filosofías en fase descriptiva. Por lo cual nuestro objetivo, en los dos primeros capítulos, fue efectuar una descripción y construcción, qué es y cómo se entiende la libertad y la pena en cada una de estas filosofías o culturas; nos encontramos con abundante construcción occidental frente a la escasa entrega de la construcción andina, es una de las dificultades, en consecuencia, los argumentos que se pudieron entregar se sustentan en las interpretaciones de los autores en su mayoría indígenas como Ilaquiche, Tibán, Llasag y en Catherine Walsh, Esther Sánchez Botero, Elisa Cruz y Joseph Estermann quienes justifican la existencia de la comunidad, del derecho indígena, los derechos colectivos, administración de justicia. Hacen un enunciado de una interculturalidad crítica, pero no profundizan como construir la misma. Una vez descritos los temas, en el tercer capítulo, fue realizar el diálogo, en todas las fuentes consultadas ninguna explicaba cómo hacerlo, excepto el maestro Boaventura de Sousa Santos con su hermenéutica diatópica. Con sus explicaciones y ejemplos propuestos, se hizo un esfuerzo que todavía no llena las expectativas, pero constituye en una breve aproximación al debate que significa el repensar nuestra forma de vivir, entender e interpretar el mundo en el cual vivimos con la existencia de varias culturas. La investigación sobre el tema propuesto llena un vacío de los tantos existentes en el campo de la bibliografía jurídica constitucional de nuestro país, y por lo pronto las líneas trazadas colaboran con el debate y la construcción de la interculturalidad.

The French Constitutional Council as the Rottweiler of the Republican Ideal in the Language Field: Does Jurisprudence Really Reflect Reality? EDAP 03/2012, 2012

France is known for being a champion of individual rights as well as for its overt hostility to any form of group rights. Linguistic pluralism in the public sphere is rejected for fear of babelization and Balkanization of the country. Over recent decades the Conseil Constitutionnel (CC) has, together with the Conseil d’État, remained arguably the strongest defender of this Jacobin ideal in France. In this article, I will discuss the role of France’s restrictive language policy through the prism of the CC’s jurisprudence. Overall, I will argue that the CC made reference to the (Jacobin) state-nation concept, a concept that is discussed in the first part of the paper, in order to fight the revival of regional languages in France over recent decades. The clause making French the official language in 1992 was functional to this policy. The intriguing aspect is that in France the CC managed to standardise France’s policy vis-à-vis regional and minority languages through its jurisprudence; an issue discussed in the second part of the paper. But in those regions with a stronger tradition of identity, particularly in the French overseas territories, the third part of the paper argues, normative reality has increasingly become under pressure. Therefore, a discrepancy between the ‘law in courts’ and the compliance with these decisions (‘law in action’) has been emerging over recent years. Amid some signs of opening of France to minorities, this contradiction delineates a trend that might well continue in future.

Whatever works: proportionality as a constitutional doctrine

In The Global Model of Constitutional Rights Kai Möller claims that the proportionality test is underlain by an expansive moral right to autonomy. This putative right protects everything that advances one’s self-conception. It may of course be limited when balanced against other considerations such as the rights of others. But it always creates a duty on the state to justify the limitation. Möller further contends that the practice of proportionality can best be understood as protecting the right to autonomy. This review article summarizes the main tenets of Möller’s theory and criticizes them on two counts. First, it disputes the existence of a general right to autonomy; such a right places an unacceptably heavy burden on others. Second, it argues that we do not need to invoke a right to autonomy to explain and justify the main features of the practice of proportionality. Like other constitutional doctrines, proportionality is defensible, if it is grounded in pragmatic –mainly epistemic and institutional- considerations about how to increase overall rights compliance. These considerations are independent of any substantive theory of rights.