Forms Of Authority Research Articles

Regionalism from above: intergovernmental relations in Canadian metropolitan governance

Robust metropolitan governance is increasingly viewed as necessary to address important economic, social and environmental problems. In this context, this article surveys recent developments in Canadian metropolitan governance. Canada was admired in the post-war period for the effectiveness of its two-tier and unitary metropolitan governments; however, few survive today as urbanisation patterns have become increasingly polycentric and intergovernmental relations more conflictual. Three models have emerged in Canada, sometimes in combination with one another: the multi-purpose regional intergovernmental organisation, the single-purpose metropolitan agency, and the provincial metropolitan policy overlay. Examples of each are discussed, with an emphasis on the interplay of horizontal (intermunicipal) and vertical (provincial–municipal) intergovernmental relations. Ultimately, provincial governments are by virtue of their constitutional authority and spending power the only actors capable of establishing and maintaining durable institutions and policies of metropolitan scope, and they have chosen to do so in Canada’s largest and most urbanised provinces.

Kekuatan Eksekutorial Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Yang Bersifat Final Dan Mengikat di Indonesia

Introduction: The Constitutional Court is a state institution that has judicial authority based on the 1945 Constitution which has the constitutional authority to conduct judicial review of the 1945 Constitution whose decisions are final and binding. However, in the implementation of the judicial review of the 1945 Constitution by the Constitutional Court, many decisions of the Constitutional Court were not carried out by other State Institutions or Government Agencies which have the obligation to follow up and implement the Constitutional Court Decisions. If the decision of the Constitutional Court is not implemented in the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia, it can legally interfere with the administration of government as a result of not implementing the decision of the Constitutional Court as a State Institution that has attribution authority in the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.
 Purposes of the Research: To analyze the Executive Power of the Decisions of the Constitutional Court which are final and binding in Indonesia
 Methods of the Research: The type of research used in this writing is normative juridical research.
 Results of the Research: The results show that the Constitutional Court's decision has executive power because it is final and binding when pronounced by the Constitutional Court Judge, and the Constitutional Court's decision actually has a juridical position as law and is used as a source of law by the DPR and the Government in forming laws. related to the decision of the Constitutional Court

Balancing Public & Economic Health in Japan during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Descriptive Analysis.

Despite loose restrictions and a low mortality rate due to COVID-19, Japan faced the challenge of stabilizing its economy during the pandemic. Here, we analyzed how the Japanese government attempted to maintain a balance between the health of the population and the health of the economy. We used a mix of quantitative data, information from policy documents, and news agency publications. Features of the Japanese government's handling of the pandemic include the lack of constitutional authority to enforce a lockdown, the laxer restrictions compared with other countries in which citizens were advised only to exercise self-restraint and avoid close social contact, and the existence of expert panels that had only an advisory role. Our findings address the slow initial response of the government, which feared that the 2020 Tokyo Olympics would be canceled, and the increased testing when the Olympics were postponed, as well as the expansion of vaccination efforts after the Olympics. In addition, there was a targeted campaign to promote national travel to increase economic revenue in the tourism sector, but this led to an increase in COVID-19 cases.

The (in)coherence of Canadian refugee education policy with the United Nations’ strategy

This study assesses the coherence of Canada’s educational policy regime with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ (UNHCR) Refugee Education 2030 strategy. We articulate a theoretical framework that combines theories about policy coherence, policy attributes, and policy tools, which informs a two-phase methodology. First, we conducted jurisdiction-based scoping reviews of policies in Canada’s 13 provinces and territories which have constitutional authority over education. This yielded a sample of 155 documents, which we then analyzed for its vertical coherence with Refugee Education 2030. Our analysis focused on five categories of need in the UNHCR strategy with respect to refugee students, namely access to education, accelerated education, language education, mental health and psychosocial support, and special education. The findings reveal there are policies across Canada that target responses to the five categories of need. Although some policies are exemplary in their coherence with Refugee Education 2030, Canada’s refugee education policy regime is characterized by many inconsistencies and significant gaps. Policymakers in Canada could use the specific findings to develop or revise policies to address shortcomings. Researchers and policymakers in other countries who find value in our approach could replicate the study’s method in their own jurisdictions, using the instruments provided in appendices to identify strengths and gaps.

Eine Geschichte namens Verfassung: Hannah Arendts Rechtsdenken zwischen Isonomie und Autorität

This article presents the legal thought of Hannah Arendt as a post-foundationalist account of constitutional authority. Where authority has traditionally been understood as a hierarchical concept, akin to rule or domination, Arendt democratizes the notion of authority by tying institutional durability to a continual renewal through acts of refounding. Arendt’s account of law can be understood as constituted by two dialectical relationships: a dialectics of isonomy, in which a protective function interacts with an enabling function, giving rise to a political notion of legal equality; and, secondly, a dialectics of authority, in which acts of founding are mediated with durability by means of a “principle” (from Latin principium, beginning). Arendt thus shifts the attention from a philosophical concern with normative grounds to a political theory of institutional temporality - a move with profound implications, as it locates a contested politics of memory within the symbolic dimension of legal order. Keywords: authority - collective memory - constitutionalism - equality - Hannah Arendt - isonomy - law - post-foundationalism - principle - temporality

A Study on the Changes in the Constitutional Status and Authority of NK Supreme Leader: Focusing on the cross-comparison of the statuses and authorities among the President, Chairman of the National Defense Commission, and Chairman of the State Affairs

The North Korean constitution regulates the status and authority of the supreme leader in detail. Therefore, through reviewing the revised constitutions of North Korea, we can compare the constitutional status and authority of Kim Il Sung (President), Kim Jong Il (Chairman of the National Defense Commission), and Kim Jong Un (Chairman of the State Affairs Commission). This study comparatively analyzed the 1972 Socialist Constitution when the status of the President was the highest, the 2009 revised Constitution when the status of the Chairman of the National Defense Commission was the highest, and the 2019 revised Constitution(14th, 15th amendments) when the status of the Chairman of the State Affairs Commission was the highest. As a result, the constitutional status and authority of ‘Chairman of the State Affairs Commission’ took precedence over ‘President’ and ‘Chairman of the National Defense Commission’. One of the representative distinctions in terms of status is the fact that the new constitution(Article 101 of the 15th amendment) regulates that the Chairman of the State Affairs Commission does not serve as representatives of the Supreme People s Assembly. ‘President’ and ‘Chairman of the National Defense Commission’ had served as representatives to the Supreme People s Assembly, although not regulated by law. In terms of constitutional authority, the distinct difference is the right to “appoint and summon diplomatic representatives stationed in other countries” (Article 104). It is an authority that neither the president nor the Chairman of the National Defense Commission had in the past. In August 2019, with the introduction of the new Constitution, this right was transferred to the Chairman of the State Affairs Commission from the Standing committee of the Supreme People s Assembly. Kim Jong Un had exercised this right to summon his uncle Kim Pyong Il, the ambassador to the Czech Republic(2019.11). It must have been an exercise of authority to prevent the leakage of power and to consolidate the monolithic leadership system. This is a good example for showing the purpose of expanding and strengthening Kim Jong Un s constitutional status and authority. The constitutional status of Kim Jong Un (Chairman of the State Affairs Commission) reached its peak in the new constitution in August 2019 and surpassed not only Kim Jong Il (Chairman of the National Defense Commission) but also Kim Il Sung (President). The preface to the Constitution states that it is “Kim Il Sung - Kim Jong Il Constitution,” but it seems safe to call it “Kim Jong Un Constitution.” This upgrade of Kim Jong Un s constitutional status and authority in 2019 fully predicted the change (rise) of Kim Jong Un s party status at the 8th Party Congress held in January this year.

Pandemic and community’s sense of justice through suo motu in India

ABSTRACT An ideal citizen centric society wedded to the democratic governance always keeps its laws in motion to build an egalitarian and just order. Aesthetic virtue of law lies in the realisation of justice and the creation of an egalitarian order. Against this backdrop, the present paper aims to examine the approach of the Supreme Court of India (SCI) towards COVID-19 Pandemic through suo motu proceedings from various perspectives of jurisprudence and constitutionalism. The government claimed to have strived intensively with full vigour but the response due tolack of preparedness and intense gravity of the catastrophe, the efforts of the government appeared negligible. It warranted prompt revisit of priorities which compelled the SCI to intervene and evaluate the legitimacy of the executive action. Furthermore, it impelled to examine the role of the SCI in responding to the community’s sense of justice and humanising justice. The paper presents the solution to the paradox generated out of the inherent friction between constitutional authority of judicial review and resistance of judicial review of executive actions by a populist government. The scope of the discussion has primarily been confined to Orders of the SCI in suo motu hearings and examined accordingly.

The Existence of Constitutional Court Decisions in the Norms System in Indonesia

The Constitutional Court is a judicial institution established based on the orders of the 1945 Constitution which has the constitutional authority to conduct judicial review of the 1945 Constitution whose decisions are final and binding.

Khap Panchayat: Retrieving ‘Honour’ through Violence

As the custodians of honour, Khap Panchayats are self-proclaimed tribunals with full validity and authority among the segments of their caste. These Panchayats are not real courts and do not have a constitutional basis. Under this unconstitutional system, all people of a village huddle around a Chabutara in order to make rapid, unilateral, and incontestable decisions on a variety of problems such as social transgression, marriage, offences, property rights, or situations endangering the village's tranquillity. It is concerning to notice that, in an era where individuals communicate via 3G technology, Indian civilization has regressed to the Dark Age. In today's culture, when legal standards and constitutional authority rule society, organisations like the Khap Panchayat obstruct progress and good government. The residents of the particular territory or community in which 'Khap' exists praise the dictates of Khap Panchayat; this is the most significant hurdle to Khap Panchayat's elimination. This study attempts to answer the question, "Why do Khaps still exist in India?" What is Khap's source of strength? It provides a thorough examination of the problem and attempts to propose a solution.

The Law of Central Bank Reserve Creation

AbstractThis article explores legal and constitutional dimensions of central banks’ powers to create money, ‘central bank reserves’, through monetary policy operations. Despite the prominence of monetary authority since the Financial Crisis, the law supporting the creation of central bank reserves is very obscure, as is the role of law in structuring constitutional authority over money. We de‐mystify those important matters in three steps. First, we explain, for a legal audience, the role of central bank reserves in the financial system and broader economy. Secondly, we analyse the legal basis for the creation of central bank reserves in three prominent ‘North Atlantic’ monetary jurisdictions: the US Dollar, Euro and Sterling systems. Thirdly, we show how the legal structure of central banking intermediates the constitutional state's authority over money through parts of the financial system, focusing on high‐profile policy proposals, including ‘QE for the people’, and the creation of central bank digital currencies.

How Liberty Dies in a Galaxy Far, Far Away: Star Wars, Democratic Decay, and Weak Executives

In this article we argue that the story of Star Wars has much to tell us about perennial questions of constitutional design. The series offers a rich cinematic exploration of some of the most pressing real-life issues of politics and constitutionalism and is, we suggest, a fruitful source of insight for issues of constitutional design and regulation. This article proceeds in three parts. In Part I, we sketch the political context which grounds our analysis, outlining the key constitutional institutions of the Galactic Republic, and their rapid decline and fall as documented across the prequel trilogy. In Part II, we outline the existing contributions commentators have made in respect of Star Wars and its lessons for constitutional design and regulation—the problem with the concentration of government power in one person and the risks posed to political systems by excessive delegation of authority to the executive branch. We then introduce three more nuanced lessons that we think the films offer: the ‘Publius paradox’; the hollowness of legalism; and the dangers of confusion at the apex of power. In Part III, with detailed analysis of the films, we show how the Star Wars saga clearly illustrates these lessons: that a constitutionally weak executive, rather than a strong one, can be a cause of democratic decay and autocracy, as it proves incapable of meeting the demands of governance; that commitment to and obsession with law is not per se any bulwark against autocracy; and that unclear lines of constitutional authority pose a huge risk at times of strain and crisis. We argue that the constitutional problem Star Wars illustrates is more subtle and more important than the dominant accounts suggest: that under concentration of power creates the risk of overconcentration of power. If we fear the decay of democracy into autocracy and wish to respond to it, we must be careful not to excessively limit or diffuse power. If we do, and begin to see constitutionalism as solely or primarily a means of restraining government, we may limit government so much that we cause the very problem we seek to prevent.

Building local capacity for emergency coordination: establishment of subnational Public Health Emergency Operations Centres in Nigeria

Public Health Emergency Operations Centres (PHEOCs) provide a platform for multisectoral coordination and collaboration, to enhance the efficiency of outbreak response activities and enable the control of disease outbreaks. Over...

1846: Canada’s FirstInquiries Act

Historical accounts of commissions of inquiry in Canada make only passing reference to the seminal 1846 Inquires Act. None explore the provenance of this legislation beyond a few sentences of the most general conjecture. This paper contends that Canada’s first Inquiries Act was a by-product of a political crisis that grew out of the politics and institutional processes integral to the resolution of claims for rebellion losses in Canada during the 1840s. As the events associated with the passage of the 1849 Rebellion Losses Bill would disclose, this crisis posed an existential threat to the viability of the Union. The passage of the Inquiries Act, precipitated by the immediate contingencies of the rebellion losses crisis, marked for Canada a fundamental shift in constitutional authority dating back to 1688. The Act embraced methods of inquiry denied to the Crown since the late seventeenth century. Though created by a democratic legislature, the Inquiries Act revived a Crown-driven inquisitional approach to public inquires long since inoperative in Great Britain. The Act thus marked a shift in the relationship between state and citizen, and opened a new terrain for the long struggle to protect the individual against the all-powerful state.

From 9/11 to 1/6: Lessons for Congress from Twenty Years of War, Legislation, and Spiraling Partisanship

Two decades on from the September 11, 2001 (9/11) attacks, and in the wake of the violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 (1/6), it is appropriate to appraise Congress’s performance over the past twenty years in providing “for the common Defence. This invited symposium essay finds the record mixed. Going forward, Congress certainly can and urgently must summon its foresight, civic courage, and institutional resolve to do a better job providing for the common defense while also doing its constitutional duty to “insure domestic Tranquility.” Part I of this essay takes stock overall. Congress helped the nation to mitigate the foreign terrorist threat more effectively than most probably expected immediately after 9/11. That is the good news. But Congress has done worse regarding the domestic terrorist threat than almost anyone twenty years ago would have predicted. Additionally, Congress has provided the Executive Branch a predictable but dangerously expansive degree of latitude in national security. Part II of this essay sets out particular lessons learned and actionable steps toward national and institutional redemption. These recommendations center on stemming the spiraling partisanship that now—worse than any foreign actor—threatens the nation’s ability to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Legislators must lead opinion: they must show integrity and put constitutional conscience ahead of partisan and personal self-interest. Congress will better play its constitutional role by asserting more confidently and carefully its abundant national security constitutional authorities vis-a-vis the Executive Branch. This essay recommends that Congress vigorously examine Executive claims about intelligence and use of force; reclaim its powers over use of force by repealing and replacing existing statutory Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMFs); reigning in standing statutory grants of emergency authority to the President; legislate with future threats and risks in mind; and enact a framework statute on to prevent repeat of the kind of radical secret reinterpretations of the law that were part of the post-9/11 era's most searing scandals regarding surveillance and torture.

Canada's legal preparedness against the COVID-19 Pandemic: A scoping review of federal laws and regulations.

As the world continues to grapple with the COVID‐19 pandemic, the preparedness of governments to respond to it will likely undergo review. A key component is the legislative capacity and authority that governments had in place or could rapidly introduce to address the social, economic and health consequences of the emergency. We review Canada’s legal preparedness for public health emergencies and the use of federal legislation to address the pandemic. We provide an overview of the concept of legal preparedness, summarize the federal statutes, regulations and orders enacted, and analyze the coherence of federal activity and its relevance to provinces, territories and international health regulations. We determine that the federal government has relied on spending power rather than constitutional authority over public health or existing legislation on influencing the course of the pandemic.

A Critical Assessment of the Need for Harmonization of the Legal Framework Concerning Abusive Informal Debt Collection Practices in the European Union

The loss of jobs and the decline in real incomes caused by the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic have affected consumers’ ability to repay their debts. These have led to high ratios of non-performing loans (NPLs), which affect the stability of the financial industry and undermine economic recovery. The result has been a need for faster debt enforcement and a drastic increase in abusive informal debt collection practices (IDCPs). In the EU, the need to regulate and harmonize abusive IDCPs surfaced in 2018 in connection to the Proposal for a Directive on Credit Servicers, Credit Purchasers and the Recovery of Collateral (CSDP). The directive would enable banks to outsource the servicing of NPLs to a specialized debt collector, but it contained no protection rules against abusive IDCPs. In this article, the researcher critically assesses the need for harmonization of the legal framework concerning abusive IDCPs in the EU, mainly from the standpoint of the initial and current text of the CSDP. Where necessary, the researcher will refer to both historical and comparative law perspectives. The researcher focuses on the legal character of informal debt collection, its relation to financial services, and its potential sui generis character. After that, the researcher will address the arguments for and against establishing pan-EU sector-specific legislation dedicated to IDCPs. Next, the researcher discusses the constitutional authority of the EU to regulate abusive IDCPs. Finally, the researcher will examine the interaction of the CSDP with other consumer (financial) protection instruments to identify the best solution for harmonizing abusive IDCPs at the EU level. The researcher will juxtapose several dichotomies: general versus sector-specific, procedural versus substantive, minimum versus maximum harmonization, and hard versus soft regulation. In the conclusion, the researcher shall synthesize the core problems and suggest an approach.

Biden Administration Relies on Constitutional Authority and Unwilling or Unable Theory of Self-Defense for Airstrikes in Syria

On February 25, 2021, the United States conducted a strike targeting Iranian-backed militia group facilities in Syria. The strike, which came in response to a February 15, 2021 attack on U.S. interests in Iraq, marked the Biden administration's first known exercise of executive war powers. As domestic authority for the strike, President Joseph Biden, Jr. cited his authority under Article II of the U.S. Constitution and did not rely on the 2001 or 2002 Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMFs). For international legal authority, Biden relied on individual self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, stating that Syria was “unwilling or unable” to prevent further attacks on the United States by these non-state actors within its territory. The strikes garnered mixed reactions from Congress, where efforts are underway to repeal or reform extant AUMFs as well as the War Powers Resolution (WPR). The Biden administration is also undertaking a review of current U.S. military policy on the use of force, and during this process, it has prohibited drone strikes outside of conventional battlefields, absent presidential approval.

The hybrid court – an appropriate solution for the protection of human rights within the territory of the Self-proclaimed Dniester Republic

Although the practice of hybrid courts was aimed at repressing international crimes, it also represents a reliable and effective model for examining cases on violation of fundamental human rights and freedoms within the territories with contested jurisdiction, not in the light of territorial dispute settlement but from the perspective of remediation, prevention and infringements ending rational within territories where there is no fair, constitutional and independent justice system. Such courts would represent the optimal solution for assessing any cases on human rights violations on the territory of self-proclaimed Dniester Republic in line with the lawfulness exercise, until the final settlement of the Transdniestrian conflict. The jurisdiction could include a panel composed of 7 judges, of which 3 would be appointed by the constitutional authorities of the Republic of Moldova, pursuant to different formulas, 2 – appointed by the UN and 2 – appointed by the OSCE. At least 3 judges shall be preferably from among the former judges of an international jurisdiction (e.g. the International Criminal Court, the European Court of Human Rights etc.). The European Convention on Human Rights could serve as the applicable substantive law, and the legislation of the Republic of Moldova – as the procedural law. The impact of creating such a court would be pivotal for the establishment of a human rights „coverage area” on the left bank of the Dniester. It is recommended however, for the proper functioning of this jurisdiction, especially endowed with confidence in the act of justice under the guarantee of international judges, that the origin of this jurisdiction shall be an external one, preferably a UN based one.

The Pandemic as a Rupture that Follows Rules: Comparing Governance Responses in India, USA, Sweden and Norway

How a country responds to a rupture such as the COVID-19 pandemic can be revelatory of its governance. Governance entails not only the exercise but also the constitution of authority. The pandemic response thus presents a real-world disruption to verify or problematize some truisms about national governance and produce novel comparisons and insights. We present a comparative analysis across four established democratic nation-states. First, we identify concerns of relevance for national pandemic responses and map them to state characteristics. Next, we conduct thematic analyses of recent ruptures in India, the United States, Sweden and Norway, to form a baseline of truisms about governance responses to frontier moments such as this pandemic, and hypothesize their relative propensities across the concerns. We then compile comparative data on emergent pandemic responses during the first 90 days of respective, temporally proximate outbreaks. This combination enables us to link response characteristics to national propensities across the relevant concerns. We identify similarities and differences between what the pandemic responses reveal and the truisms of scholarship about the four countries state characteristics. We argue that ruptures in democratic governance contexts embody temporally discontiguous and country-specific patterns. They are conjunctures of particular possibilities for bounded reconfiguration. Such reconfiguration can intensify or shift the course of what the state is becoming. We argue that in our cases it accelerates shifts to authoritarianism (India and the United States), raises stark questions of national identity (Norway and Sweden) and underscores tensions between the reemergence of welfare states and the global project of neoliberalism. By revealing what sort of rules show resurgence across ruptures, our comparative analysis deepens a timely understanding of punctuated politics of reconfiguration of authority.

War Crime Pardons and Presidential (Self-) Restraint

In 2019, then-President Trump pardoned three military officers for battlefield misconduct that could have been charged as war crimes. These were the first such pardons in American history and left many current and former members of the Armed Forces bewildered: these officers had all been charged by their military chains-of-command after sufficient evidence indicated culpability, and in two of the cases, military juries (“panels”) consisting of high-ranking officials with combat experience had convicted the officers and sentenced them to hefty federal prison terms. The granting of clemency under these circumstances has proven fraught with consequences – consequences adversely affecting the relationship between the president as commander-in-chief and the senior military leaders who cautioned against such extrajudicial mercy. Nevertheless, the president’s authority to do so, under Article II of the Constitution, is nearly without limit, and no other statute, case law precedent, or other formal restriction prevents him from doing so. This article approaches the problem from an assumption that neither the Constitution itself will be amended to carve out such crimes from the president’s reach, nor that Congress will amend the Uniform Code of Military Justice or the War Crimes Statute to chip away at this power by enacting administrative conditions on its exercise. Rather, this article suggests that the most likely and practical tool to prevent such pardons in the future is the reasonable, prudential exercise of restraint by the commander-in-chief. Several contingent factors, based on the possible timing of the pardon in relation to where the case is in the military justice process, are identified as a framework for exercising this prudential restraint notwithstanding the Constitutional authority to ignore it.