ICON S Conference 17 – 19 June 2016 Humboldt University Berlin

Recommendations

Info

etween various shades of secondary constituent powers along a ‘spectrum’; a theoretical construct that links constitutional amendment procedures and limitations which ought to be imposed upon constitutional amendment powers. According to this spectrum theory, constitutional systems are polymorphic: the more similar the democratic characteristics of the amendment powers are to those of the primary constituent power, the less it should be bound by limitations; and vice versa: the closer it is to a regular legislative power, the more it should be fully bound by limitations. This examination is an important step towards a theory of unamendability. Richard Albert: The Informal Amendment of Formal Amendment Rules In constitutional democracies, the entrenchment of formal amendment rules is intended to reflect the necessary and sufficient conditions to alter the constitutional text. Yet in many constitutional democracies, formal amendment rules have been informally amended by judicial interpretation, legislative and executive action, as well as by constitutional convention to require constitutional actors to satisfy conditions altogether different from what the text of the formal amendment rules expressly requires. In this paper, I explain and evaluate how constitutional actors have informally amended formal amendment rules in constitutional democracies. Juliano Zaiden Benvindo: Playing with the ‘Timing’ of Constitutional Change: Of Courts, Congresses and Individual Agendas This paper examines how Congressmen and Justices, sometimes in a symbiotic manner, negotiate the pace of the constitutional agenda and the timing of the constitutional change. It delves into some individual strategies such as: a) a Justice asking for more time to study further a case, adjourning the Court’s final decision while Congress reacts by passing a new legislation which will directly impair that ongoing decision b) Congressmen not deliberating in the expectation that the Supreme Court takes the first step in a matter of strong political disagreement c) a Justice granting an injunction in order to affect the pace of the legislative process, among others. By focusing on systemic and strategic behavioral analyses, this paper will comparatively delve into examples as such in the United States and Brazil. It aims to provide a relevant discussion of how institutional design can nudge, and sometimes fail to foster behaviors that may strengthen constitutionalism at large. Concurring panels 42
SATURDAY 18 JUNE <strong>2016</strong> 9:00 <strong>–</strong> 10:45 am Panels Session II Concurring panels 43
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 and 28: p. 160 112 REFUGEE PRIVILEGE OR HUM
Page 29 and 30: 1 CONSTITUTIONALISM AND CONSTITUTIO
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: on the income and social benefits o
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?