| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
106255
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
According to our constitutional conception, modern democracy is multidimensional: it incorporates the values of faction control, minority rights protection, and informed deliberation, as well as political accountability. The impact of multilateral organizations (MLOs) on democracy is often not straightforward: it requires careful analysis of how particular MLOs interact with preexisting domestic political institutions within specific issue-areas. Thus we reject the conventional wisdom that MLOs are necessarily democracy-degrading simply because they are not directly participatory. Gartzke and Naoi's critique misstates our views on some fundamental issues. We clarify our analyses of the multidimensional nature of constitutional democracy; the relationship between democracy and multilateralism; the Madisonian distinction between interest groups that support the general interest and those that do not; and our understanding of the current state of research. We suggest possibilities for further elaborating our argument, theoretically and empirically.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
129609
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Courts have become an increasing focus for political contestation in Southeast Asia. Yet little is known about the basis of their political power and legitimacy. Drawing on recent scholarship in the field of judicial politics, and presenting a case study of the Philippine Supreme Court after the transition to democracy in 1986, this article explores the conditions under which the Court has exercised its powers in the context of a democratizing state such as the Philippines. More specifically, it will show how strong public support has enabled the Court to exercise its judicial review powers and its authority over contending political actors. In drawing attention to the understudied link between public support and judicial assertiveness, the paper aims to advance existing scholarship by going beyond existing indicators of judicial independence and to provide new insights into the dynamics of evolving constitutional practice in the region through the interaction of the courts with the public.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
154943
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The purpose of this article is to explore the consequences of following two different understandings of law for the consolidation of rule of law and democracy, provided by Friedrich von Hayek and Carl Schmitt. The context within which this exploration is carried out is the political scene of Turkey since December 2013. It is first argued that while the Hayekian understanding of law strengthens the principle of rule of law and democracy, the Schmittian understanding undermines them. Secondly, it is argued that Justice and Development Party government in Turkey has followed the Schmittian understanding of law at least since December 2013 and this in turn has undermined the rule of law and democracy in Turkey.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|