This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Gupta Class meeting on Tuesday: 2.30-5 pm. Constitutional systems are increasingly converging. This convergence is marked by an on-going conversation between courts across the world. There is a free and open practice of “borrowing” taking place between constitutional systems. The course will insightfully compare perspectives from prominent jurisdictions such as South Africa, United States, Germany, and India and more on selected themes. In doing so, it examines the common threads arising from the structure and features of constitutions as well as substance of basic rights, to converge on the discussion about the possibilities of post-national constitutions. This course is interested to ask whether there is a unity of meanings that can be gathered from this open exchange. And, what are its consequences? The rapid rise of constitutional-cosmopolitanism is not without problems of context, identity, and coherence to name only a few. It defies (seen in a heuristic way) the horizontal axis of integration that traditionally joins the state and its people. There is a need to examine the foundational undercurrents of a comparative constitutional law enquiry before advancing a wholesale borrowing of foreign law. It is relevant to ask how it accounts for: culture and history, peculiarities of social structure, and multiple modernities? Kindly note, this is a rough draft of the syllabus as it may be undergo revision during the semester. Students are free to come up with their own choices of readings. Students taking this course will be required to do intensive reading to facilitate class discussions and analytically reflect on the debates arising from it. Evaluation for the course will be in the form of a takehome exam, the questions for which will be framed by students and the course instructors working together. In addition, students are expected to write a response to the debates in each Unit--, due before the next class-meeting. Class participation: 10% Reflective essay: 50% (Submit essay by e-mail) End-semester Take-Home essay: 40% Acknowledgment I am grateful to Frank Michelman, Vlad Perju, Alec Stone Sweet, Arun Thiruvengadam, Richard Albert for sharing their course-lists, and also perspectives on this course. 1. Comparative Constitutional Law: Why Compare? What to Compare? With Whom? (Rajeev)
Why Comparative Constitutional Law in COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONALISM (Norman Dorsen et al eds., Thomson: West, 2003), pp. 1-10 (to be shared via e-mail) What is Comparative Constitutional Law in COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (Vicki C.Jackson & Mark Tushnet, ed., Foundation Press: 2006, 2nd ed.), pp. 141-154 (to be shared via e-mail) Sujith Chowdhry, Globalization in Search of Justification: Toward a Theory of Comparative Constitutional Interpretation, 74 Indiana Law Journal 819 (1999) (to be shared via e-mail) Amartya Sen, Human Rights and Asian Values, NEW REPUBLIC 33-40 (July 14-21, 1997) (to be shared via e-mail) Randall Peerenboom, Beyond Universalism and Relativism: The Evolving Debates about ―Values in Asia‖, 14 Indiana International and Comparative Law Review 1 (2003) (to be shared via e-mail) Optional Reading:
Bilhari Kausikan, An East-Asian Approach to Human Rights, 2 Buffalo Journal of International Law 263 (1996) Vlad Perju, The Authority of Foreign Law (2010) (to be shared via e-mail)
2. Permeating Borders of Constitutional Law: Trans-National Judicial Dialogue (Rajeev) Bruce Ackerman, The Rise of World Constitutionalism, 83 Virginia Law Review, 771797 (1997) Christopher McCrudden, A Common Law of Human Rights? Transnational Judicial Conversations on Constitutional Rights, 20 OJLS 499 (2000) Ran Hirschl, TOWARDS JURISTOCRACY: THE ORIGINS AND CONSEQUENCES CONSTITUTIONALISM, (2004), pp. 1-16; 31-49 (to be shared via e-mail)
Debate between Justices Breyer and Scalia on the use of foreign law (ICON, 2007) pp. ? Vlad Perju, The Puzzling Parameters of the Foreign Law Debate (2007 Utah L. Rev.) India: Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi, 160 Delhi Law Times 277 (2009)
Madhav Khosla, Inclusive Constitutional Comparison: Reflections on India‘s Sodomoy Decision, American Journal of Comparative Law (forthcoming) (to be shared via e-mail) Optional Reading: Tom Ginsburg, Confucian Constitutionalism? The Emergence of Constitutional Review in Korea and Taiwan, 27 Law & Social Inquiry, 763-799 (2002)
3. Will Formation in Constitutions (Vik) Hannah Ardent, ON REVOLUTIONS, (1965) (chapter 1) William E. Scheuerman, Revolutions and Constitutions: Hannah Arendt‘s Challenge to Carl Schmitt 10 Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence 141 (1997) Andras Sajo, Preferred Generations: A Paradox of Restoration Constitutions in CONSTITUTIONALISM, IDENTITY, DIFFERENCE AND LEGITIMACY: THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES (to be shared by e-mail) H. Kwasi Prempeh, “Africa’s Constitutional Revival: False Start or New Dawn?” 5 International Journal of Constitutional Law (2007). France: On Constitutional Amendment Adopted by Referendum, 6 November 1962 South Africa: Certification of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (4) SALR 744 (CC) (to be shared via e-mail) Optional Reading: Tamir Moustafa, “Law and Resistance in Authoritarian States: The Judicialization of Politics in Egypt, in Rule By Law Robert Barros, Constitutionalism and Dictatorship: Pinochet, the Junta, and the 1980 Constitution (Cambridge, 2002).
4. Constitutional Symbolism: Words, Symbols, and Sub-text (Vik) Dieter Grimm, Integration by Constitution, International Journal of Constitutional Law (I-CON), vol. 3(2-3):193-208 (2005) Jũrgen Habermas, Remarks on Dieter Grimm‘s ‗Does Europe Need a Constitutoin‘ 1 European Law Journal 303 (1995)
H.W.O. Okoth-Ogendo, Constitutions Without Constitutionalism: Reflections on an African Political Paradox, in CONSTITUTIONALISM AND DEMOCRACY: TRANSITIONS IN THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD 63-82 (DOUGLAS GREENBERG ET AL., eds. 1993) (to be shared by e-mail) J.H.H. Weiler, On the Power of the Word: Europe‘s Constitutional Iconography, ICON Australia: Australian Capital Television Ltd. v. Commonwealth of Australia (1992), 177 CLR 106 Upendra Baxi, “The Little Done, Vast Undone”—Some Reflections on Reading Granville Austin’s The Indian Constitution 9 JILI (1967)
5. New Separation of Powers (Rajeev) Germany: Parliamentary Dissolution Case (1984) (extract to be shared via e-mail) Pakistan: Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. Federation of Pakistan (extract to be shared via email) Eric Barendt, Separation of Powers and Constitutional Government, Public Law 599 (1995) Bruce Ackerman, The New Separation of Powers, 113 Harvard Law Review 633 (2000) (pp. 634-688) Steven G. Calabresi, The Virtues of Presidential Government, 18 CONSTITUTIONAL COMMENTARY 51 (2001) Alfred Stepan and Cindy Skatch, Constitutional Frameworks and Democratic Consolidation: Parliamentarianism versus Presidentialism, World Politics 46 (1), pp. 122 (1993) Cindy Skatch, The 'Newest' Separation of Powers, 5 ICON, pp. 93-121 Optional Reading: Alec Stone, Constitutional adjudication and Parliamentary democracy in West European Politics 25: 77-100 (2002) Richard Albert, The Fusion of Presidentialism and Parliamentarism (to be shared via email)
Carlos Santiago Nino, Transition to Democracy, Corporatism and Presidentialism with Special Reference to Latin America (to be shared via e-mail)
6. Judicial Review: Democracy and Constitutionalism (Rajeev) Alexander Bickel, Establishment and General Justification of Judicial Review in THE LEAST DANGEROUS BRANCH: THE SUPREME COURT AT THE BAR OF POLITICS Yale University Press, pp. 1-33, (1986) Jeremy Waldron, Representative Lawmaking, 89 BU Law Rev. 335 (2009) Germany: Klass case (read extract to be sent via e-mail) India: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461 (read extract to be sent via e-mail) Sudhir Krishnaswamy, DEMOCRACY AND CONSTITUTIONALISM IN INDIA: A STUDY OF THE BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE, (chapter 5) pp.? (2009) Raju Ramachandran, Book Review: Sudhir Krishnaswamy: Democracy and Constitutionalism in India—A Study of the Basic Structure Doctrine, 13 Indian Journal of Constitutional Law 213 (2009) Gary Jeffrey Jacobsohn, An Unconstitutional Constitution? A Comparative Perspective, 4 ICON 460 (2006) Richard Albert, Constitutional Handcuffs, 42 Arizona State Law Journal pp.? (2010)
7. State of Emergency: Extraordinary Powers and Ordinary Limits (Vik) USA: Ex Parte Milligan (1866) Malaysia: The Cheng Poh v. Public Prosecutor (1980) S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1 (read extract to be sent via e-mail) Gary Jeffrey Jacobsohn, Bommai and the Judicial Power: A View from the United States, 2 Indian Journal of Constitutional Law 38 (2008) William Banks & Alejandro D. Carrio, Presedential Systems in Stress: Emergency Powers in Argentina and the United States, 15 Mich. J. Int. Law (1993)
Optional Reading: K. Suryaprasad, ARTICLE 356 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: PROMISE AND PERFORMANCE (New Delhi: Konishka Publishers, 2001)
8. Is Dignity and Life Comparable? (Vik) Jũrgen Habermas, The Concept of Human Dignity and the Realistic Utopia of Human Rights Manoj Mate, The Origins of Due Process in India: The Role of Borrowing in Personal Liberty and Preventive Detention Cases, available at http://www.boalt.org/bjil/docs/BJIL28.1_Mate.pdf USA: Gregg v. Georgia Jordan Steiker, Note on Roper v. Simmons, International Journal of Constitutional Law (2006) India: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898 (See Bhagwati’s dissenting opinion) Hungary: Hungarian Constitutional Court, Decision 23/1990 on capital punishment, in Solyom & Brunner, Constitutional Judiciary in a New Democracy (Michigan, 2000) South Africa: S. v. Makwanyane (3) SALR 391 (CC) Carol Steiker, Capital Punishment and American Exceptionalism in MICHAEL IGNATIEFF, AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM AND HUMAN RIGHTS (Princeton, 2005) James Whitman, Harsh Justice: Capital Punishment and the Widening Divide between America and Europe (excerpts: Introduction & Conclusion)
9. Constitutional Reasoning about Rights (Rajeev) Canada: R. v. Oakes,  1 S.C.R. 103 Israel, Shavit v. The Chevra Kadisha (Burial Society) of Rishon Le Zion (1999) (extract to be shared via e-mail) Dieter Grimm, Proportionality in Canadian and German Constitutional Jurisprudence, 57 Univ. Toronto L. Rev. 383 (2007) Ahon Barak, Proportionality and Principled Balancing, 4(2) Law and Ethics of Human Rights (2010)
Jũrgen Habermas, BETWEEN FACTS AND NORMS, 256-259 (1996) Mattias Kumm, The Idea of Socratic Contestation and the Right to Justification: The Point of Rights based Proportionality Review, 4(2) Law and Ethics of Human Rights (forthcoming, 2010) Optional Reading:
Robert Alexy, The Construction of Constitutional Rights, 4 (1) Law and Ethics of Human Rights 20 (2010) Martti Koskenniemi, Occupied Zone – ―A Zone of Proportionality” (Lecture, Tel Aviv University, 2007) Alec Stone Sweet & Jud Mathews, Proportionality Constitutionalism, 47 Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 72 (2008) Balancing and Global
10. Constitutional Experimentalism: Social Economic Rights (Rajeev) South Africa: Treatment Action Campaign Case (2002) South Africa: The Olivia Road Case (2008) South Africa: The Khosa Case (2004) Justice Albie Sachs, Social and Economic Rights: Can They be Made Justiciable, SMUL Rev. 1381 (2000) Arun Thiruvengadam, The Global Dialogue Among Courts: Social Rights Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of India from a Comparative Perspective in C. Raj Kumar and K. Chockalingam, HUMAN RIGHTS, JUSTICE, AND CONSTITUTIONAL EMPOWERMENT 264 (2007) Madhav Khosla, Making Social Rights Conditional: Lessons from India, Forthcoming I.Con (2011) David Landau, The Reality of Social Rights Enforcement, 53 Harv. Int’l L. Rev. (forthcoming 2012), available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1774914 Ashok Desai & S. Muralidhar, Potential and Problems in B.N. Kirpal et al (eds.), Supreme but not Infallible, 159 (2000)
11. Horizontal Application of Constitutional Rights and the Constitutionalization of Private Law (Rajeev)
USA: Shelly v. Kramer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948) Germany: Lũth case 7 BVerfGe 198 (1958) European Court of Human Rights: Von Hannover v. Germany (Appl. No. 59320/00) (2004) Mark Tushnet, The Issue of State Action/Horizontal Effect in Comparative Constitutional Law, 1.CON 79 (2003) Frank Michelman, The Bill of Rights, the Common Law, and the Freedom Friendly State, 58 University of Miami Law Review 401 (2003) Duncan Kennedy, The Stages of the Decline of the Public/Private Distinction 130 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1349 (1982)
12. Constitutionalism Beyond the State (Vik) Germany: Maastricht Treaty case as in COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONALISM (Norman Dorsen et al eds., Thomson: West, 2003), pp. 59-64 (extract to be shared via e-mail) Germany: Lisbon Treaty case 59-64 (extract to be shared via e-mail) Germany: Internationale Handelsgesellschaft Mbh v. Einfuhr-Und Corratsstelle Fũr Getreide Und Futtermittel as in COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONALISM (Norman Dorsen et al eds., Thomson: West, 2003), pp. 52- 55(to be shared via e-mail) Carl Schmitt, State Ethics and the Pluralist State in Arthur Jacobson and Bernhard Schlink, WIEMAR: A JURISPRUDENCE OF CRISIS (2002) Neil Walker, Taking Constitutionalism Beyond the State Deter Grimm, The Constitution in the Process of Denationalization
13. Constitutionalization of International Law (Vik) Fassbender, Rediscovering a Forgotten Constitution: Notes on the Place of the UN Charter in the International Legal Order Armin Von Bogdandy, Constitutionalism in International law: Comment on a Proposal from Germany Duncan Kennedy, Is the International System a Constitution for International Society
European Court of Justice: Stauder v. Ulm (Case 29/69 of the Court of Justice) India: Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011 Stephen Gardbaum, Human Rights as International Constitutional Rights Amita Dhanda, Legal Capacity in the Disability Rights Convention: Stranglehold of the Past or Lodestar for the Future?
14. Constitutional Cosmopolitanism (Vik/Rajeev) Mattias Kumm, The Cosmopolitan Turn in Constitutionalism: On the Relationship between Constitutionalism in and beyond the State Vlad Perju, Cosmopolitanism and Constitutional Self-Government, 8 I.CON (2010) N. Krisch, Global Administrative Law and the Constitutional Ambition
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.