Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
  • Publication
    The Implications of the 'No' Vote in France: Making the Most of a Wasted Opportunity
    (Brill Academic, 2008)
    On 29th May 2005, French citizens were asked the following question: "Approuvez-vous le projet de loi qui autorise la ratification du traité établissant une Constitution pour l’Europe?" (Do you approve of the Bill authorizing the ratification of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe?). When French people cast their vote, nine Member States representing nearly half the people of the European Union (EU) had already decided, by parliamentary or referendum method, to ratify the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (hereby, the Constitutional Treaty). France was the second Member State to ratify by referendum after Spain where approval of the Constitutional Treaty was massive – but turnout low. 54.67% of French voters answered "non" and hence rejected the Constitutional Treaty, even though France was one of the major proponents of the Convention on the Future of Europe which led to the drafting of the Constitutional Treaty.
      179
  • Publication
    The Comparative Method in Legal Research: The Art of Justifying Choices
    (Clarus Press, 2016-06)
    Comparative law is a thriving area in the study of t he law which has attracted, in the last decades, a growing interest in legal scholarship and legal edu cation. The expanding literature published in quality specialised outlets as well as a steadfast nu mber of research events organised by universities, research institutes and other numerous organisations all attest the phenomenon. It is difficult to find an academic law curriculum which does not comprise a course in comparative law in some form, whether as an introductory course in the first years of study, or as a more substantial course at a later stage. A comparative perspective may also be embedded, in a more or less systematic way, in the study of the different subjects of law (i.e. contract law, commercial law, constitutional law, family law, procedural law...). Comparative legal studies are also increasingly being pursued at doctoral level. In a sense, ‘we are all comparatists now’, or bound to be.
      11918
  • Publication
    Popular Sovereignty and the Use of the Referendum – Comparative Perspectives with Reference to France
    (Bloomsbury Professional, 2012)
    Constitutions are bound to evolve. A constitution which cannot change or adapt does not serve effectively its purpose since the values and principles it is based upon need to be 'brought to life' through interpretation, application and incremental revisions: in sum, a successful 'living constitution' has a past, present and future. In this regard, it is remarkable to observe how the Irish and French Constitutions have survived through time as two of the most enduring constitutions in Europe without either becoming a mere 'petrified object of devotion'.
      863
  • Publication
    L'Obligation De Renvoi Préjudiciel En Irlande : Raisonnement Sur Hypothèses En L'Absence De Dispositif National De Sanction
    (Bruylant, 2014-04)
    One of the most recently debated issues about the preliminary ruling procedure is about State liability for breaches of EU law by the judiciary. Stemming from the implications of three sets of cases by the Court of Justice of the European Union, namely Köbler, Kühne and Kempter, Lucchini and Fallimento Olimpiclub, the issue calls for a reflection on the possibility to sanction at national level a judicial decision not to refer. The issue is of particular relevance since the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that an arbitrary decision not to refer a question for a preliminary ruling theoretically could infringe the right to a fair trial. The work by Laurent Coutron, L’Obligation De Renvoi Préjudiciel: Une Obligation Sanctionnée ?, offers detailed analyses on this issue in nineteen EU Member States, including Ireland. Some legal systems such as Germany regard the preliminary ruling procedure as a right for individuals who are entitled to an appropriate remedy when this right has been infringed by failure to refer by a supreme court which has the obligation to do so. Other countries have started to hint in this direction, for example the French Court of Cassation which has recently decided that the refusal to refer could be regarded as a ‘denial of justice’ leading to possible State liability proceedings. The report on Ireland is divided in three parts. A first part gives an overview of the practice of preliminary procedure by Irish courts with updated figures and trends. A second part presents preliminary observations about the domestic courts subject to the obligation to refer. The third part analyses the mechanisms aimed at 'sanctioning' the failure to refer by courts against which there is no remedy. While such mechanisms are absent in Irish law, the chapter puts forward two potential options, namely the possibility of judicial review and State liability for a decision not to refer by the Supreme Court, the High Court and instances involving lower courts against which there is no further remedy.
      385
  • Publication
    Constitutional Law in France (International Encyclopaedia of Laws)
    This Part provides a vignette of French constitutional history as well as some significant features of the current regime, including information on the State and its territory, as well as up-to-date data on population and demographics.
      416
  • Publication
    The European Convention on Human Rights Act: Implementation Mechanisms and Compliance
    (Bloomsbury Professional, 2015-10-22)
    The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, known as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), is the ‘essential reference point for the protection of human rights in Europe’. Concluded by the Council of Europe (CoE) on 4 November 1950, the ECHR defines rights and freedoms which the Contracting parties ‘shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction’ under Art 1 of the ECHR, and sets up the mechanisms for controlling Contracting parties’ compliance with the obligation to secure t hese rights and freedoms. Since its entry into force on 3 September 1953, the ECHR has arguably become the single most successful international instrument of human rights protection, as attested by the activity of its Court. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR or Court) has ruled in over 20,000 cases on many societal issues such as assisted suicide, domestic slavery, abortion-related questions, adoption by homosexuals, discrimination against Roma, or the wearing of the Islamic headscarf in schools and universities. The geographical scope of the protection under the ECHR, which covers 47 state parties with a combined population of over 800 million people, is another s ign of its prominence, as is the fact that the European Union (EU) is now legally bound to become a party to it under Art 59(2) of the ECHR. All 47 members of the CoE, which include the 28 member sta tes of the EU, are subject to the international supervision of the ECtHR. 5 Also, in accordance with the principle of subsidia rity (ie that compliance with ECHR rights is better ensured at domestic level), the ECHR now forms an integral part of the domestic legal order of all state parties. Despite these achievements, the ECHR system faces a number of challenges which call for further initiat ives in order to guarantee the long-term effectiveness of its enforcement mechanism, the imp rovement of the work and legitimacy of its court in particular.
      1295