Constitutions around the world : A View from Latin America

This paper gives a global summary of the number of constitutions and the number of　articles in each constitution for many representative countries around the world. Several　works have already been written comparing different legal systems and different　constitutional traditions around the world; the purpose of this paper is just to compare the　numbers of constitutions and articles in the diverse regions of the world, namely: North　America, Latin America, Europe, Oceania, Middle East, Asia and Africa. Around the world, on average, Latin America has had the most convoluted constitutional history. The Dominican Republic has had a total of 32 constitutions, the largest number of constitutions of any country, since its independence in 1844. Three other countries have also had 20 or more constitutions throughout their history, all of them in Latin America: Venezuela (26), Haiti (24) and Ecuador (20). On the other hand, there are economies and societies that do not even have codified constitutions, like the United Kingdom in Europe, Hong Kong in Asia and New Zealand in Oceania. The United States has had only one constitution, even if it has been amended several times. There are also the special cases of Israel and Saudi Arabia, both in the Middle East, that do not have official written constitutions for historical and religious reasons. Comparative constitutional numbers and history help explain several things about the stability of political systems, but not necessarily about their quality.

Concrete Meccanos: Precast Constructions after the Second World War in the Netherlands

Estudio de soluciones prefabricadas de hormigón no estandarizadas en los Países Bajos tras la Segunda Guerra Mundial.

Mies van der Rohe's Illinois Institute of Technology: Analysis and History of a Compositive Development = El IIT de Mies van der Rohe: análisis e historia de un proceso compositivo

The Illinois Institute of Technology (iit) campus, Chicago, by architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, is often considered as a transitional work, usually acknowledged as significant for the reorientation of his professional career after he emigrated to the United States. Moreover, its favorable recognition today is somehow indicative of its relevance as a model for urban intervention in the contemporary American city and for contemporary city planning in general, not to mention the profound impact that it had on the cityscape of Chicago. However, today we know it was rather the result of a close collaboration between he and Ludwig Hilberseimer —later on, to be completed with Alfred Caldwell— who merged their personal ideas and expertise in the design for the first time. In addition to this, when one tries to locate the design within its own historical context and evaluate the sources of its approach to it, some contradictions arise. The major impact of the images produced by Mies to promote its realization —widely disseminated in most contemporary architectural periodicals— probably outshined the particular circumstances in which the design was conceived. In fact, it would never be materialized as originally presented, but it was, instead, continuously reworked according to land availability in the site —a circumstance often ignored by subsequent architectural critic, that enthusiastically praised the design even before it was fully completed. One of the main consequences of looking at iit from such a standpoint is that, when historically contextualized, one can appreciate that, due to the urban scale of its implementation process, the design had to face a complex reality very different to that initially planned by the architect, often far from his actual possibilities of intervention. Such approach is in contradiction with the common description of the design as a ‘tabula rasa’ that allegedly would have been formulated on the basis of a full denial of its context. On the contrary, the ever-changing circumstances of the design motivated a necessary re-interpretation of the relation between its executed fragments, in order to keep the original identity of the whole in an ever-changing context. This situation implied a continuous transformation of the design by means of a steady re-composition of its elements: as the number of completed buildings increased in its successive stages, their relation to their site-specific context changed, in a very particular process that these lines try to delineate. Requiring decades to be erected, neither of its authors would ever see the design finished as planned, partially because of the difficulties in acquiring the extension of land that it required. Considering the study of this process as able to provide a valuable gateway to understand the urban discourse that the architects entailed, the aim of these lines is to analyze the problems that the iit campus design had to face. As a starting point, a relationship between practice and theory in the activity of the authors implied in iit campus design has been assumed. Far from being interrupted during World War ii, strong historical evidence can be found to infer that both were developed in parallel. Consequently, the historical sequence of the preserved testimonies has been put into context, as well as their transformation while Mies remained in charge for the campus Master Plan. Notably, when seen from this perspective, some ideas already expressed during his previous European practice were still present during the design process. Particularly, Mies's particular understanding of certain architectural concepts — such as those of ‘order’ and ‘structure’—can be traced paralleling the theories about urban planning from his collaborators, a fact that possibly facilitated the campus successful development. The study of the way these ideas were actually redeveloped and modified in the American urban context, added to the specific process of the implementation of iit campus design, sheds a new light for a critical interpretation of the reasons that made it possible, and of the actual responsibility of Mies's collaborators in its overall development and final completion. RESUMEN El campus del Illinois Institute of Technology (iit) de Chicago, obra del arquitecto Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, es a menudo considerado como una obra de transición que, por lo general, ha venido siendo reconocida como relevante para la reorientación de su carrera profesional posterior a su exilio en los Estados Unidos. El reconocimiento del que goza el proyecto es indicativo, de algún modo, de su importancia como modelo para la intervención urbana en la ciudad norteamericana contemporánea y el planeamiento de la ciudad contemporánea en general, sin olvidar el profundo impacto que ha tenido sobre el paisaje urbano de Chicago. Sin embargo, hoy sabemos que el resultado se benefició de su estrecha colaboración con Ludwig Hilberseimer y se completaría más tarde con la de Alfred Caldwell, quienes unieron sus ideas y experiencia profesional en el proyecto por primera vez. Asimismo, cuando se intenta ubicar el proyecto dentro de su propio contexto histórico y evaluar los criterios de su manera de abordarlo, surgen algunas contradicciones. El considerable impacto de las imágenes producidas por Mies para impulsar su ejecución —ampliamente difundidas en la mayoría de publicaciones de arquitectura de la época— probablemente eclipsó las particulares circunstancias en las que el proyecto fue concebido. De hecho, nunca llegó a materializarse tal y como fue inicialmente presentado. Por contra, fue reelaborado de manera continua, de acuerdo a la disponibilidad de suelo en el emplazamiento; una circunstancia a menudo ignorada por la crítica posterior, que elogió con entusiasmo el proyecto antes siquiera de que fuese terminado. Una de las principales consecuencias de contemplar el iit desde semejante punto de vista es que, una vez contextualizada históricamente su puesta en obra, se puede apreciar que el arquitecto tuvo que enfrentarse a una compleja realidad urbana muy diferente a la inicialmente prevista —probablemente debido a la escala del proyecto— a menudo lejos de sus posibilidades reales de intervención. Este enfoque contradice la descripción habitual del proyecto como una ‘tabula rasa’, que supuestamente se habría formulado sobre la base de una negación completa de su contexto. Por el contrario, las circunstancias cambiantes del proyecto obligaron una necesaria reinterpretación de la relación entre sus frag mentos ejecutados, con el fin de mantener la identidad original del conjunto en un contexto en constante cambio. Esta situación implicó una continua transformación del proyecto por medio de una permanente re-composición de sus elementos: según se incrementaba el número de edificios construidos en las etapas sucesivas de desarrollo del conjunto, variaba su relación con el contexto específico en que se emplazaban, en un proceso muy particular que estas líneas tratan de perfilar. Al necesitar décadas para ser levantado, ninguno de sus autores vería el conjunto terminado según lo planificado, en parte debido a las dificultades para la adquisición de la extensión de suelo que demandaba. Asumiendo que el estudio de este proceso es capaz de proporcionar una valiosa puerta de entrada para elucidar el discurso urbano asumido por los Mies, el objetivo de estas líneas es analizar los problemas a los que el proyecto del campus del iit tuvo que enfrentarse. Como punto de partida, se ha supuesto una relación entre la práctica y la teoría en la actividad de los autores implicados en el proyecto del campus del iit. Lejos de interrumpirse durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial, existen evidencias históricas sólidas para deducir que ambas vertientes se desarrollaron en paralelo. En consecuencia, se ha contextualizado la secuencia histórica de los testimonios conservados, así como su transformación durante el periodo en que Mies estuvo a cargo del Plan General del campus. Significativamente, al ser contempladas bajo esta perspectiva, algunas ideas ya expresadas durante su práctica europea anterior resultan aún presentes durante la redacción del proyecto. En concreto, se puede trazar un paralelismo entre la comprensión particular de Mies de ciertos conceptos arquitectónicos —como los de ‘orden’ y ‘estructura’— y las teorías sobre el urbanismo de sus colaboradores, hecho que posiblemente facilitó el exitoso desarrollo del proyecto. El estudio de la manera en que estas ideas fueron reelaboradas y modificadas en el contexto urbano estadounidense, sumado al proceso específico de su aplicación en el proyecto del campus del iit, arroja una nueva luz para una interpretación crítica tanto de las razones que lo hicieron posible, como del papel real que los colaboradores de Mies tuvieron en su desarrollo y ejecución final.

After the British World

Peer reviewed

The Keyes to Reclaiming the Racial History Of the Roberts Court

This article advocates for a fundamental re-understanding about the way that the history of race is understood by the current Supreme Court. Represented by the racial rights opinions of Justice John Roberts that celebrate racial progress, the Supreme Court has equivocated and rendered obsolete the historical experiences of people of color in the United States. This jurisprudence has in turn reified the notion of color-blindness, consigning racial discrimination to a distant and discredited past that has little bearing to how race and inequality is experienced today. The racial history of the Roberts Court is centrally informed by the context and circumstances surrounding Brown v. Board of Education. For the Court, Brown symbolizes all that is wrong with the history of race in the United States - legal segregation, explicit racial discord, and vicious and random acts of violence. Though Roberts Court opinions suggest that some of those vestiges still exits, the bulk of its jurisprudence indicate the opposite. With Brown’s basic factual premises as its point of reference, the Court has consistently argued that the nation has made tremendous strides away from the condition of racial bigotry, intolerance, and inequity. The article accordingly argues that the Roberts Court reliance on Brown to understand racial progress is anachronistic. Especially as the nation’s focus for racial inequality turned national in scope, the same binaries in Brown that had long served to explain the history of race relations in the United States (such as Black-White, North-South, and Urban-Rural) were giving way to massive multicultural demographic and geographic transformations in the United States in the years and decades after World War II. All of the familiar tropes so clear in Brown and its progeny could no longer fully describe the current reality of shifting and transforming patterns of race relations in the United States. In order to reclaim the history of race from the Roberts Court, the article assesses a case that more accurately symbolizes the recent history and current status of race relations today: Keyes v. School District No. 1. This was the first Supreme Court case to confront how the binaries of cases like Brown proved of little probative value in addressing how and in what ways race and racial discrimination was changing in the United States. Thus, understanding Keyesand the history it reflects reveals much about how and in what ways the Roberts Court should rethink its conclusions regarding the history of race relations in the United States for the last 60 years.