Abstract This article presents a comprehensive examination of the role of constitutions in private disputes, with a specific focus on the Chinese Constitution. Utilizing an extensive dataset of digitized court adjudications, this study delves into a relatively unexplored area, yielding crucial factual and legal insights. The research reveals that the Chinese Constitution significantly influences civil adjudications, both implicitly and explicitly. Furthermore, court judgments emerge as pivotal forces shaping public awareness of constitutional principles. These findings hold profound implications for comprehending the role of constitutions in contexts beyond democratic frameworks, particularly within the private sphere. The study underscores how the capitalist market in China empowers individuals to assert and safeguard private rights, consequently affording the Constitution a protective role in this realm. Concurrently, the existing regime has systematically eroded the Constitution’s influence in public affairs, maintaining its symbolic and rhetorical role. Notably, the concept of judicial independence remains a sensitive subject in China, leading many civil courts to eschew constitutional provisions in favor of political expediency. This paradox underscores the necessity of establishing a reasonably independent judiciary as an integral facet of constitutionalism in such settings. In sum, this research challenges prevailing assumptions about constitutionalism’s contours. It transcends the conventional focus on political authority, illustrating how empirical investigations into constitutional performance within civil litigation can illuminate the emergence of constitutionalism in the shadows of non-democratic systems. These findings offer valuable insights into the role of constitutions in private disputes and pave the way for further exploration within this evolving scholarly domain. Ultimately, this study advances our comprehension of constitutional realities and their far-reaching impacts on the legal landscape and society within contemporary China.

Abstract This article analyses the constitutional complaint in Kosovo through the lens of governmental liability and constitutional certainty. Although it is one of the most significant legal mechanisms for the protection of human rights in Kosovo, the remedial impact of a constitutional complaint does not appear to be appropriate for granting ‘just satisfaction’ and holding a public authority accountable for a violation of constitutional rights. To make the state’s constitutional liability for human rights violations a reality, additional legislative reforms are necessary. The introduction of ‘constitutional damage’ award in the context of the Kosovan constitutional judiciary is therefore especially pertinent to this end. Such a remedy would hold the state accountable for abuses of human rights originating from the unconstitutional behavior of government officials. It would finally provide victims of constitutional rights violations with appropriate means of legal redress, which is the ultimate end of constitutional justice. The constitutional principle of ‘legitimate expectation’ is also not unimportant in this context. By offering a critical perspective on the Constitutional Court’s case-law, this article argues for the significance of adhering to the ‘legitimate expectations’ principle to ensure equality of the parties in constitutional litigation proceedings and a constant development of constitutional jurisprudence that is vital for the Kosovan democracy.

Abstract This Article challenges one of the most robust commonplaces in the study of Indian Constitutional Law, viz. that Directive Principles of State Policy under Article IV cannot be enforced by the judiciary. Through a careful reading of the Constitution’s text and structure, as well as an investigation of relevant precedents within India, the United States, and other common-law jurisdictions, it argues: (1) Article 39A commands ‘the State’ to promote justice on the basis of equal opportunity, in particular through legal services enacted through legislation or other methods; (2) The judiciary is part of the State that Article 39A commands; (3) Courts, then, must use their powers to fulfill Article 39A even if that Article is not judicially enforceable; (4) The judiciary has authority over the maintenance and integrity of the legal system; (5) It also has its own authority to spend money to maintain and improve that system; and (6) it has the authority to allocate funds to pay lawyers and other legal personnel in civil cases if it believes that doing so will strengthen the legal system and fulfill its Article 39A mandate. The Constitution’s promise of the right to counsel in civil cases thus lies well within the judicial power to accomplish. The Article suggests areas where the judiciary should use this power, e.g., family law, housing, and the environment. It also raises important questions about the very nature of Directive Principles and the meaning of judicial ‘enforcement.’

Abstract Natural resources are the foundation for all life on earth, which all living creatures depend on to exist. Thus, it is subject to many sorts of laws and policies. Globally, constitutions follow different approaches to dealing with their respective country’s natural resources, which are rooted in the diverging cultures, political, economic, and legal systems, as well as in the distinct historical developments of the diverse constitutional orders. Accordingly, the present contribution discusses the prominent similarities between the inclusion of provisions relating to ownership, exploitation and exploration, and the use of natural resources, be they renewable or non-renewable, but also notes the different perspectives adopted and methods of protection applied in the analysed countries’ constitutions. The countries discussed in this paper are South Africa and Chad; Brazil, Cuba, and Bolivia; India and Iran; Germany; and Australia. This paper begins by, firstly, defining ‘natural resources’ and delineating its overlapping concepts. Secondly, the framework for comparison of the analysed countries is set out. Thirdly, the countries selected are separately discussed. Lastly, the comparative analysis is presented with a few concluding observations.

Abstract This article bridges comparative constitutional law with research inspired by city leadership and the opportunities that technology brings to the urban environment. It looks first to some of the causes of rapid urbanization and finds them in the pitfalls of antidiscrimination law in federations and quasi-federations such as the United States and the European Union. Short of achieving antidiscrimination based on nationality, the EU has experimented with data privacy as an identity clause that could bring social cohesion the same way purportedly freedom of speech has done in the US. In the City however, diversity replaces antidiscrimination, making cities attractive to migrants across various walks of life. The consequence for federalism is the obvious decline of top-down or vertical, state-based federalism and the rise of legal urbanism whereby cities establish loose networks of cooperation between themselves. These types of arrangements are not yet a threat to the State or the EU but might become such if cities are increasingly isolated from the political process (e.g., at the EU level) and lack legal means to assert themselves in court. City diversity and openness to different cultures in turn invites a connection to new technologies since unlike antidiscrimination that is usually strictly examined on a case-by-case level, diversity can be more readily computed. Finally, the article focuses on NYC and London initiatives to suggest a futuristic vision of city networks that instead of using social credit score like in China, deploy data trusts to populate their urban environments, shape city identities and exchange ideas for urban development..

Abstract This essay appraises the commemoration of the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 2023 presents a watershed to reflect on the promises and problems of implementing the international human rights agenda. It posits that the time is ripe to accelerate progress on this fundamental global governance technology by reaping historic lessons that are reshaping international relations in the contemporary arena. This is with a view to mitigate complex ambiguities and contradictions which hamstring the mobilization of meaningful solidarity and will power that are necessary for cooperation among states to help evolve a more secure, peaceful, and prosperous world. In this light, the essay articulates the institutionalization of the international human rights regime as approximating a proxy for equality as a core value to strengthen the global common good. Building on this formulation, it proffers inequality as a warning system that is useful to radically rethink conventional pathways that compromise the international security architecture. Zeroing in on Africa as an instructive frame of reference, the essay explores how unfolding opportunities for urgent multilateral action might nurture innovative solutions to wage a sustainable war against cross-pollinating vulnerabilities that are decisively fueling insecurities and escalating future uncertainties.

Abstract Aiming at contributing to the debate about the effectiveness of constitutional courts in enhancing the protection of women’s rights, this paper focuses on the case law of the Italian Constitutional Court. After an introduction on the role, functions, and composition of the Court, three foci will be put on the Court’s case law: (1) on the abolition of the gender-based discrimination in the adultery law, which caused also the abolition of the crime itself, (2) on the legislation introducing gender quotas for increasing women’s political representation, (3) on the legislation on abortion and reproductive rights.

Abstract In Europe, judicial review is not only exercised by courts within the states. Additionally, there are two European Courts, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). This chapter shows first their respective function with respect to judicial review. In a second step, it put its emphasis on the relationship between them and undertakes to ask whether – with respect to judicial review - one of them can be understood as the ‘Supreme Court of Europe’. It concludes that it is the European Court of Human Rights which can be described as such a ‘Supreme Court’.

Abstract Considering the external effects of adjudicative activity of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, structural questions emerge regarding the influence of IACtHR precedent in judicial branches of the Parties to the American Convention on Human Rights. In this sense, this paper seeks to apply the theoretical typologies developed by Ryan Goodman and Derek Jinks to the analysis of operative mechanisms of influence of international law inside the States’ jurisdictions. In this regard, it was necessary to create new specific categories (eg, acculturative persuasive precedent, selective persuasive precedent), to test whether they suitably describe the application of Inter-American precedents, in an attempt to categorize the recent performance of the highest courts in Brazil, Colombia, Argentina, Chile, and Bolivia. Additionally, the concept of double control of conventionality has presented essential perspectives for the compliance with IACtHR judgments by demanding States, as well as the interpretation and application of national laws deemed compatible, or not, with the Pact of San José. In the end, quantitative analysis played an important role in measuring each national court’s assimilation of international precedents as it outlined scenarios of explicit adoption of Inter-American Court precedent by national judicial branches. Sampled States were classified as follows: a) Brazil: selective persuasive IACtHR precedent with low performance; b) Colombia: acculturative persuasive IACtHR precedent with high performance; c) Argentina: selective persuasive IACtHR precedent with moderate performance; d) Chile: selective persuasive IACtHR precedent with high performance; and e) Bolivia: acculturative persuasive IACtHR precedent with moderate performance.

Abstract The forms of intervention of international courts in domestic affairs could be divided into three broad paradigms: (1) the Westphalian Paradigm, (2) the Hierarchical Paradigm, (3) the Network Paradigm. According to the Westphalian Paradigm, the role of international courts is to coordinate the interactions of sovereign states. According to the Hierarchical Paradigm, international courts initiate social change by issuing judgments that require states to amend their practices. Naturally, under this paradigm, courts are concerned about their ability to secure compliance with their judgments but also about the legitimacy of their decisions and their ability to make good policy stipulations. According to the Network Paradigm, international courts are embedded within a vast web of actors with different interests. This chapter will survey the three different paradigms of international judicial review and demonstrate the unique considerations international courts need to take into account under every paradigm.