ICON S Conference 17 – 19 June 2016 Humboldt University Berlin

Recommendations

Info

FRIDAY 17 JUNE 2016 5:15 – 7:00 pm Panels Session I Concurring panels 26
1 CONSTITUTIONALISM AND CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION Panel formed with individual proposals. Participants Name of Chair Room Or Bassok Mark A. Graber James Grant Scott Stephenson Scott Stephenson UL6 2070A Or Bassok: Beyond the Horizons of American Constitutional Thinking American constitutional debate is controlled by certain paradigms that block the ability to think beyond them. In this paper, I expose two of these paradigms and examine the way in which they control and limit American constitutional thinking. Mark A. Graber: Race and American Constitutional Exceptionalism American exceptionalism in American political development and in comparative constitutional law suffer from a similar blind spot. Just as Rogers Smith pointed out that the classical works in American political development tended to confine race in ways that discounted the substantial influence of race on American constitutional development, so the classical works on American constitutional exceptionalism tend to confine race to the margins of the American constitutional experience, overlooking the powerful impact race has had over almost all doctrines of American constitutional law. This paper notes one difference between the United States and many constitutional democracies is that while much constitutionalism in Europe has been forged by struggles over the meaning of an anti-fascist imperative, much constitutional development in the United States is informed by racist and anti-racist imperatives. my argument, including that it allows too much power for judges to change the constitution, and that it does not sufficiently allow for variations among countries in the scope of judicial power. Scott Stephenson: The Rise and Recognition of Quasi-Constitutional Law The common law world of constitutionalism is often viewed through the lens of ‘regular constitutional law’, distinguishing those countries that have entrenched constitutions enforced by judicial review from those that do not. In this paper, I study the influence ‘quasiconstitutional law’, statutes that purport to alter a fundamental feature of the system of government and that are enacted through the ordinary lawmaking process, has on this distinction. In this paper, I argue, first, that legislators across the common law world increasingly turned to quasi-constitutional law to pursue changes to their systems of government in the second half of the twentieth century and, second, however the appearance of commonality and convergence is potentially misleading because the absence or presence of regular constitutional law affects the way in which and the extent to which the judiciary recognizes quasiconstitutional law. James Grant: Constitutional Foundations, Law and Interpretation This paper contributes to the debate over whether judges should appeal to foreign decisions and moral reasoning to change their constitutions through the guise of interpretation. First, I defend HLA Hart’s argument that the constitutional foundations of legal systems consist of extra-legal customary rules, which exist because they are practiced by officials and ‘accepted’ by them (in Hart’s special meaning of acceptance). Secondly, I argue, consistently with Hart’s account, that when judges interpret the constitution in creative ways, they do not necessarily act in a way that is unjustified. Moreover, their action may even be considered constitutional, if their interpretation, though novel, is nonetheless generally accepted by officials. The paper also responds to a number of objections to Concurring panels 27
Page 1 and 2: ICON S Conference 17 - 19 June 201
Page 3 and 4: ICON S Conference 17 - 19 June 201
Page 5 and 6: ICON S Inaugural Governance The In
Page 7 and 8: Saturday 18 June 2016 Sunday 19 Jun
Page 9 and 10: EVENTs Plenary PLENARY Events 7
Page 11 and 12: FRIDAY 17 JUNE 2016 → UL6 Audima
Page 13 and 14: FRIDAY 17 JUNE 2016 → UL6 Audima
Page 15 and 16: saturday 18 JUNE 2016 → UL6 Audi
Page 17 and 18: concurring panels Concurring panels
Page 19 and 20: Panels Session i FRIDAY, 17 JUNE 20
Page 21 and 22: p. 61 30 RACIAL OTHERNESS IN EUROPE
Page 23 and 24: p. 94 57 IRREGULAR IMMIGRANTS ACROS
Page 25 and 26: p. 127 85 OTHERNESS IN PUBLIC LAW J
Page 27: p. 160 112 REFUGEE PRIVILEGE OR HUM
Page 31 and 32: 3 FIGHT OVER THE TURKISH CONSTITUTI
Page 33 and 34: 5 REGIONAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL STRUC
Page 35 and 36: 7 COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES ON THE L
Page 37 and 38: will demonstrate that OTC derivativ
Page 39 and 40: conditionality is still driven only
Page 41 and 42: mechanisms and practices of surveil
Page 43 and 44: on the income and social benefits o
Page 45 and 46: SATURDAY 18 JUNE 2016 9:00 - 10:45
Page 47 and 48: 17 WOMEN IN THE LAW Panel formed wi
Page 49 and 50: 19 WHO DRAWS THE BOUNDARIES? The Is
Page 51 and 52: Constitutional Court, which engages
Page 53 and 54: 22 QUESTIONING HIERARCHICAL BOUNDAR
Page 55 and 56: The paper strives to present the po
Page 57 and 58: 25 BORDERS & POPULATION DESIGN: TES
Page 59 and 60: versities? Who are the national aut
Page 61 and 62: 28 COLLECTIVE MEMORY AND PUBLIC LAW
Page 63 and 64: Germans from the East, large guest
Page 65 and 66: ertheless, the introduction of this
Page 67 and 68: Orla Lynskey: The free movement of
Page 69 and 70: 35 CONSTITUTIONALISM IN RUSSIA: COM
Page 71 and 72: are viewed as “other” by one an
Page 73 and 74: Matej Avbelj: On the Nature of EU C
Page 75 and 76: Christopher Alexander Thomas: Avoid
Page 77 and 78: ench. By so doing, the article atte
Page 79 and 80:
SATURDAY 18 JUNE 2016 11:30 am - 1:
Page 81 and 82:
44 CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION, DIA
Page 83 and 84:
Jaclyn Ling Chien Neo: Secular Cons
Page 85 and 86:
47 COMPARING LAW(S) AND INSTITUTION
Page 87 and 88:
49 SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOP- MENT
Page 89 and 90:
Johannes Eichenhofer: An alternativ
Page 91 and 92:
Stephanie Law: The Constitutionalis
Page 93 and 94:
offer an expansive protection of re
Page 95 and 96:
had inherited from its Socialist pa
Page 97 and 98:
Emily Ryo: Developing Legal Cynicis
Page 99 and 100:
59 HUMAN DIGNITY AND “OTHERNESS
Page 101 and 102:
explore the relation between securi
Page 103 and 104:
62 THE NEXT LEGAL FRONTIERS IN EURO
Page 105 and 106:
ies of government to limit and guid
Page 107 and 108:
Jochen von Bernstorff: Ironic Const
Page 109 and 110:
estricted to women, children and fa
Page 111 and 112:
the court characterizes proportiona
Page 113 and 114:
70 CONSTITUTIONAL IDENTITY IN TIMES
Page 115 and 116:
72 DIFFERENCE DISAGREEMENT AND THE
Page 117 and 118:
most important example is the Europ
Page 119 and 120:
Philipp Kastner and Elisabeth Roy T
Page 121 and 122:
Michèle Finck: The Right to the Ci
Page 123 and 124:
small number of Pakistani belies th
Page 125 and 126:
mark in the annals of international
Page 127 and 128:
ing attention in the constitutional
Page 129 and 130:
sity of private enforcement mechani
Page 131 and 132:
Federico Caporale: Water Grabbing:
Page 133 and 134:
88 THE INCLUSION OF “THE OTHER”
Page 135 and 136:
ment’s purpose in enacting partic
Page 137 and 138:
91 THE INTERNATIONAL RULE OF LAW -
Page 139 and 140:
93 JUDICIAL DIVERSITY: A COMPARATIV
Page 141 and 142:
95 LAW(S) OF REFUGEES II Panel form
Page 143 and 144:
are at stake, administrative courts
Page 145 and 146:
SUNDAY 19 JUNE 2016 9:00 - 10:45 am
Page 147 and 148:
Zsuzsanna Gedeon: Constitutional co
Page 149 and 150:
101 THE BLURRED BORDERS BETWEEN PUB
Page 151 and 152:
contractual governance, this can ha
Page 153 and 154:
104 RETHINKING SOCIAL INCLUSION WIT
Page 155 and 156:
making, appearing to accord the pol
Page 157 and 158:
is ambiguous. Some argue that globa
Page 159 and 160:
109 THE LAW(S) OF WAR Panel formed
Page 161 and 162:
in cars in order to generate unreal
Page 163 and 164:
lum fit uneasily with the transnati
Page 165 and 166:
Clemens Rieder: Boundaries and Soli
Page 167 and 168:
116 THE RIGHT OF NON-CITIZENS TO CO
Page 169 and 170:
118 THE TRANSATLANTIC TRADE AND INV
Page 171 and 172:
120 OTHERNESS IN LATIN AMERICA: LEG
Page 173 and 174:
Caitlin Goss: Constitutional drafti
Page 175 and 176:
development of the political econom
Page 177 and 178:
policy and legal framework around d
Page 179 and 180:
Third, since the EU and the US have
Page 181 and 182:
The ICON S Working Papers Conferenc
Page 183 and 184:
Venue The 2016 ICON S Conference on
Page 185 and 186:
Venues UL6 Unter den Linden 6 Main
Page 187 and 188:
UL6 Unter den Linden 6 Main Buildin
Page 189 and 190:
UL9 Unter den Linden 9 Law Faculty
Page 191 and 192:
Floor 4 1.405 1.404 1.403 1.402 Flo
Page 193 and 194:
A David Abraham University of Miami
Page 195 and 196:
Pauline Endres de Oliveira Justus L
Page 197 and 198:
Ingrid Leijten Leiden University 1
Page 199 and 200:
Tilman Reinhardt Humboldt Universit
Page 201 and 202:
Vanessa Wintermantel WZB Berlin Soc
Page 203 and 204:
With the collaboration of Funded by
show all

ICON S Conference 17 – 19 June 2016 Humboldt University Berlin

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?