The New Separation Of Powers

To what extent should the doctrine of the separation of powers evolve in light of recent shifts in constitutional design and practice? Constitutions now often include newer forms of rights – such as socioeconomic and environmental rights – and are written with an explicitly transformative purpose. They also often reflect include new independent bodies such as human rights commissions and electoral tribunals whose position and function within the traditional structure is novel. The practice of the separation of powers has also changed, as the executive has tended to gain power and deliberative bodies like legislatures have often been thrown into a state of crisis. The chapters in this edited volume grapple with these shifts and the ways in which the doctrine of the separation of powers might respond to them. It also asks whether the shifts that are taking place are mostly a product of the constitutional systems of the global south, or instead reflect changes that run across most liberal democratic constitutional systems around the world.

This insightful book guides readers through the transformation of, and theoretical challenges posed by, the separation of powers in national contexts. Building on the notion that the traditional tripartite structure of the separation of powers has undergone a significant process of fragmentation and expansion, this book identifies and illustrates the most pressing and intriguing aspects of the separation of powers in contemporary constitutional systems.

This book offers a radical and provocative revision of the theory of separation of powers. It argues that, although designed to protect democracy, separation of powers is often used today to undermine it by concealing and centralising the exercise of power by public officials. The theory is then reinvented for the modern regulatory state.

The rule of law is frequently invoked in political debate, yet rarely defined with any precision. Some employ it as a synonym for democracy, others for the subordination of the legislature to a written constitution and its judicial guardians. It has been seen as obedience to the duly-recognised government, a form of governing through formal and general rule-like laws and the rule of principle. Given this diversity of view, it is perhaps unsurprising that certain scholars have regarded the concept as no more than a self-congratulatory rhetorical device. This collection of eighteen key essays from jurists, political theorists and public law political scientists, aims to explore the role law plays in the political system. The introduction evaluates their arguments. The first eleven essays identify the standard features associated with the rule of law. These are held to derive less from any characteristics of law per se than from a style of legislating and judging that gives equal consideration to all citizens. The next seven essays then explore how different ways of separating and dispersing power contribute to this democratic style of rule by forcing politicians and judges alike to treat people as equals and regard none as above the law.

Each branch of American government possesses inherent advantages and disadvantages in structure. In this book, the author relies on a separation-of-powers analysis that emphasizes the advantage of the legislature to draft precise words to fit intended situations, the judiciary’s advantage of being able to do justice in an individual case, and the executive’s homogeneity and flexibility, which best suits it to decisions of an ad hoc nature. Identifying these structural abilities, the author analyzes major public policy issues, including gun control, flag burning, abortion, civil rights, war powers, suing the President, legislative veto, the exclusionary rule, and affirmative action. Each issue is examined not from the point of view of determining the right outcome, but with the intention of identifying the branch of government most appropriate for making the decision.

The separation of powers is an important principle of liberal constitutionalism. However, the traditional rationale behind institutional separation can no longer govern the distribution of authority in the modern state. This book develops a new model of the separation of powers theory for the administrative state. It argues for the replacement of the traditional theory with a new model which has the potential to both enhance democratic checks and balances and to legitimise the role of administrative and regulatory bodies in the modern state. Explaining how developments in modern governance have subverted the principles originally underpinning the separation of powers, the book identifies the ways in which lawyers and administrators have sought to preserve these democratic principles in particular areas. These piecemeal efforts are gathered together into a cohesive account of a radical overarching framework for institutional reform. Drawing on examples from the United Kingdom, Ireland and the U.S.A., the book provides both a descriptive and prescriptive analysis of the ways in which our legal and political notions of institutional separation have so far, and (more importantly) may, in the future, deal with the problems posed by the emergence of quasi-public administrative or regulatory agencies. Far from the traditional view of administrative agencies as a threat to democracy, administrative bodies, in fact, can provide a valuable opportunity for reforming public governance in a way which reinforces the foundational principles of democracy.

Vile traces the history of the doctrine from its rise during the English Civil War, through its development in the eighteenth century -- through subsequent political thought and constitution-making in Britain, France, and the United States.