Judicial Reconstruction And The Rule Of Law

American constitutional lawyers and legal historians routinely assert that the Supreme Court's state action doctrine halted Reconstruction in its tracks. But it didn't. Rethinking the Judicial Settlement of Reconstruction demolishes the conventional wisdom - and puts a constructive alternative in its place. Pamela Brandwein unveils a lost jurisprudence of rights that provided expansive possibilities for protecting blacks' physical safety and electoral participation, even as it left public accommodation rights undefended. She shows that the Supreme Court supported a Republican coalition and left open ample room for executive and legislative action. Blacks were abandoned, but by the president and Congress, not the Court. Brandwein unites close legal reading of judicial opinions (some hitherto unknown), sustained historical work, the study of political institutions, and the sociology of knowledge. This book explodes tired old debates and will provoke new ones.

First published in 1999, this volume is a series of essays on the countries of Central Europe. The essays explore the post-1989 establishment of the rule of law and civil society. It brings together analysis and perceptions from social scientists, political scientists and lawyers, seeking through particular issues to explore the similarities and differences between different countries. While other books have explored the changes in former Soviet Block countries since 1989, the book’s distinctiveness lies in three qualities: its concentration on Central Europe a concept explored in the book; giving fuller attention to the Czech Republic and Slovakia than other post-communist studies often do; providing perceptions of scholars from different disciplines.

This short and accessible book is the first to focus exclusively on the inter-relation between transitional justice and rule of law reconstruction in post-conflict and post-authoritarian states. In so doing it provides a provocative reassessment of the various tangled relationships between the two fields, exploring the blind-spots, contradictions and opportunities for mutually-beneficial synergies in practice and scholarship between them. Though it is commonly assumed that transitional justice for past human rights abuses is inherently conducive to restoring the rule of law, differences in how both fields conceptualise the rule of law, the scope of transition and obligations to citizens have resulted in divergent approaches to transitional criminal trial, international criminal law, restorative justice and traditional justice mechanisms. Adopting a critical comparative approach that assesses the experiences of post-authoritarian and post-conflict polities in Latin America, Asia, Europe and Africa undergoing transitional justice and justice sector reform simultaneously, it argues that the potential benefits of transitional justice are exaggerated and urges policy-makers to rebalance the compromises inherent in transitional justice mechanisms against the foundational demands of rule of law reconstruction. This book will be of interest to scholars in the fields of transitional justice, rule of law, legal pluralism and peace-building concerned by the failure of transitional justice to leave a positive legacy to the justice system of the states where it operates. ‘This is a bold and nuanced scrutiny of the international system’s approach to transitional justice and the much vaunted rule of law project. Dr McAulifee should be congratulated for this well-researched book which should be a must read for not only scholars and researchers in transitional justice and peace and conflict studies, but also policy-makers in the international system.’ Dr. Hakeem O. Yusuf, Senior Lecturer, University of Strathclyde and author of Transitional Justice, Judicial Accountability and the Rule of Law.

Tremblay's theory of the rule of law involves a set of practical principles that constitute the ideal type of a conception of law that is both constitutive and regulative of legal discourse and practice. Tremblay examines two competing ideal types, the "rule of law as certainty" and the "rule of law as justice." The former, a standard doctrine within contemporary legal, social, and political theory, is shown to be incoherent. Thus the "rule of law as justice," he shows, provides the best basis for understanding legal discourse in general and Canadian constitutional law in particular. Tremblay offers a coherent reconstruction of Canadian law from fundamental principles of the rule of law as justice and tests the theory through applications to key judicial decisions that have proven resistant to positivist interpretation. The Rule of Law, Justice, and Interpretation is both a stimulating work of contemporary legal theory and an innovative challenge to the traditions of Canadian constitutional law. Tremblay examines fundamental issues of legal epistemology and ontology and brings rigorous analytical jurisprudence to bear on interpretations and applications specific to Canadian constitutional law. Given the important implications of his theory for statutory and constitutional interpretation, especially with respect to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the potential crisis involving provincial rights of secession and partition, this book will be central to the practice of law in Canada.

Theatre of the Rule of Law presents a sustained critique of global rule of law promotion - an expansive industry at the heart of international development, post-conflict reconstruction and security policy today. While successful in articulating and disseminating an effective global public policy, rule of law promotion has largely failed in its stated objectives of raising countries out of poverty and taming violent conflict. Furthermore, in its execution, this work deviates sharply from 'the rule of law' as commonly conceived. To explain this, Stephen Humphreys draws on the history of the rule of law as a concept, examples of legal export during colonial times, and a spectrum of contemporary interventions by development agencies and international organisations. Rule of law promotion is shown to be a kind of theatre, the staging of a morality tale about the good life, intended for edification and emulation, but blind to its own internal contradictions.

Constitutional rights protect individuals against government overreaching, but that is not all they do. In different ways and to different degrees, constitutional rights also regulate legal relations among private parties in most legal systems. Rights can have not only a vertical effect, within the hierarchical relationship between citizen and state, but also a horizontal one, on the citizen-to-citizen relationships otherwise governed by private law. In every constitutional system with judicially enforceable constitutional rights, courts must make choices about whether, when, and how to give those rights horizontal effect. This book is about how different courts make those choices, and about the consequences that they have. The doctrines that courts build to manage the horizontal effect of rights speak to the most fundamental issues that constitutional systems address, about the nature of rights and of constitutionalism itself. These doctrines can also entrench or enhance judicial power, but in very different ways depending on the legal system. This book offers three case studies, of Germany, the United States, and Canada. For each, it offers a detailed account of the horizontal effect jurisprudence of its apex court-not in isolation, but as a central feature of a broader account of that country's constitutional development. The case studies show how the choices courts make about horizontal rights reflect existing normative and political realities and, over time, help to shape new ones.

This book offers a unique interdisciplinary comparison of the dominant trends in constitutional developments and legal change across different regions of the world in the last half century, bringing together the constitution-making of the post-colonial era with the post-communist political reconstruction and globalization of constitutionalism.

The idea of building a blueprint ‘rule of law’ through military intervention has seized the imagination of practitioners and theorists alike in the past decade of peacebuilding operations, and an emphasis on simultaneous judicial reconstruction and security sector reform has emerged as their central strategy. This work, in a fresh approach based on recent military operations in Iraq and beyond, challenges both the universality of the blueprint and the doctrinal assumption that institutional reform by military interveners builds peace and legitimacy. In a comprehensive review, the essential role of the community in developing its own relationship with law, while interveners refocus exclusively on restoring public security using their extraordinary powers under international humanitarian law, emerges as the only future for ‘rule of law operations.’