Judicial Review of Legislation in the UK: Fundamental Common Law Principles as "Constitutional Principles" Limiting the Sovereignty of Parliament?

The aim of this paper is to explore the role of judicial review of legislation in the UK from a legal constitutionalist’s point of view. After having introduced the reader to the origins of judicial review of legislation in general and the two theoretical models of constitutionalism, the UK’s system of constitutionalism will be analysed in particular. In this context, the process of “juridification” and “judicalisation” will be discussed in order to show that the British doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty - famously articulated by Dicey in 1885 - is currently under attack. The main focus of this research paper is on the theory of common law constitutionalism (CLC theory), according to which the common law is seen as constituting a higher order of law, a moral ideal and a superior form of public reason, and therefore the ultimate controlling factor of Parliament’s actions. On the basis of the academic theory, the judicial reception of this theory will be analysed with particular attention to the House of Lords’ decision in Jackson in 2005. It will be argued that the system of the common law constitutionalism in the UK is not very different from the system of legal constitutionalism: Firstly, fundamental principles embedded in the common law like the rule of law are similar to constitutional principles of codified supreme constitutions, providing for benchmarks of judicial review of legislation. Secondly, the requirement of exceptional circumstances for invalidating legislation in the CLC system corresponds to the idea of (strong) judicial self-restraint in legal constitutionalist systems

Euro-sceptical or Euro-phile? A critical analysis of the jurisprudence of the German Federal Constitutional Court on the process of European integration and decision-making

On 14 January 2014, for the first time in its history, the German Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) decided to refer a decision to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). This referral, which concerned the issue of the legality of the European Central Bank’s bond-buying practices, must be seen as “historic” with regard to European integration and the relationship between European Union law and German constitutional law, forming part of important decisions of the FCC in this field since its first euro-critical judgment, Solange I, 40 years ago. Considering the high influence the German Federal Constitutional Court has had on the process of European integration, this paper aims at identifying and critiquing the lines of argumentation developed by the FCC in recent years in the field of European integration and decision-making before and after the Lisbon judgment in 2009, paying particular attention to the currently suspended OMT Decision proceedings in order to answer the question if a shift in the jurisprudence of the FCC from a euro-sceptical to a euro-phile approach has taken place

Deportation on the Basis of Diplomatic Assurances : Permissible under the European Convention on Human Rights? : a Critical Analysis of the Judgment of the ECtHR in Abu Qatada v the United Kingdom (2012) and Its Impact on the Jurisprudence of the ECtHR

Inspired by the recently concluded litigation seeking to deport the radical Islamic preacher Abu Qatada from the UK to Jordan, this paper aims at examining the 2012 judgment of the ECtHR by focusing on the question under which circumstances a deportation with diplomatic assurances (DWA) may be permissible under the European Convention on Human Rights. Relevant background information will be provided concerning the interplay of the use of the DWA policy and the European Convention on Human Rights as well as concerning the particular circumstances that led to the ECtHR’s ruling in Abu Qatada. In the following analysis of the judgment, the focus will be on the interplay of the DWA policy and the European Convention on Human Rights with special regard to art 3 and art 6 of the Convention. Finally, the impact of this judgment on the future jurisprudence and the DWA policy will be shown. In the light of this judgment, it will be argued that the counter terrorism means of deporting a non-national terrorist suspect with diplomatic assurances seems to be compatible with the Convention if the diplomatic assurances given guarantee a sufficient protection of the human rights of the transferee, which due to the uncertain effects of the DWA policy, still has to be decided on a case-by-case basis

The (in-) effectiveness of international law: A critical analysis of the rational choice theory in the light of the Ukrainian crisis 2014

The aim of this research paper is to explore the role and content of the rational choice theory in international law and to critically analyse this theory in the light of the current Ukrainian crisis: Does the Ukrainian crisis 2014 prove rational choice theorists right? Can Russia’s military intervention in Crimea and the annexation of this region be seen as the failure of the UN Charter and therefore, as an evidence for the ineffectiveness of international law? Is international law effective at all? It will be argued that the rational choice theory cannot be seen as proven right in the light of the Ukrainian crisis 2014: Although, with regard to Russia’s unlawful military intervention in Crimea, the current crisis might at first glance be considered as validating the rational choice theory and the general ineffectiveness of international law, there is as well some evidence to be found in the actions and reactions of Russia and other nation-states and institutions from which one can deduce that international law does influence states’ behaviours, that states are not merely acting out of self-interest but also out of international legal obligations and that thus the current crisis may rather serve as an example of the (overall) effectiveness of international law

Deportation on the Basis of Diplomatic Assurances : Permissible under the European Convention on Human Rights? : a Critical Analysis of the Judgment of the ECtHR in Abu Qatada v the United Kingdom (2012) and Its Impact on the Jurisprudence of the ECtHR

Inspired by the recently concluded litigation seeking to deport the radical Islamic preacher Abu Qatada from the UK to Jordan, this paper aims at examining the 2012 judgment of the ECtHR by focusing on the question under which circumstances a deportation with diplomatic assurances (DWA) may be permissible under the European Convention on Human Rights. Relevant background information will be provided concerning the interplay of the use of the DWA policy and the European Convention on Human Rights as well as concerning the particular circumstances that led to the ECtHR’s ruling in Abu Qatada. In the following analysis of the judgment, the focus will be on the interplay of the DWA policy and the European Convention on Human Rights with special regard to art 3 and art 6 of the Convention. Finally, the impact of this judgment on the future jurisprudence and the DWA policy will be shown. In the light of this judgment, it will be argued that the counter terrorism means of deporting a non-national terrorist suspect with diplomatic assurances seems to be compatible with the Convention if the diplomatic assurances given guarantee a sufficient protection of the human rights of the transferee, which due to the uncertain effects of the DWA policy, still has to be decided on a case-by-case basis

Euro-sceptical or Euro-phile? A critical analysis of the jurisprudence of the German Federal Constitutional Court on the process of European integration and decision-making

On 14 January 2014, for the first time in its history, the German Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) decided to refer a decision to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). This referral, which concerned the issue of the legality of the European Central Bank’s bond-buying practices, must be seen as “historic” with regard to European integration and the relationship between European Union law and German constitutional law, forming part of important decisions of the FCC in this field since its first euro-critical judgment, Solange I, 40 years ago. Considering the high influence the German Federal Constitutional Court has had on the process of European integration, this paper aims at identifying and critiquing the lines of argumentation developed by the FCC in recent years in the field of European integration and decision-making before and after the Lisbon judgment in 2009, paying particular attention to the currently suspended OMT Decision proceedings in order to answer the question if a shift in the jurisprudence of the FCC from a euro-sceptical to a euro-phile approach has taken place

Euro-sceptical or Euro-phile? A critical analysis of the jurisprudence of the German Federal Constitutional Court on the process of European integration and decision-making

On 14 January 2014, for the first time in its history, the German Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) decided to refer a decision to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). This referral, which concerned the issue of the legality of the European Central Bank’s bond-buying practices, must be seen as “historic” with regard to European integration and the relationship between European Union law and German constitutional law, forming part of important decisions of the FCC in this field since its first euro-critical judgment, Solange I, 40 years ago. Considering the high influence the German Federal Constitutional Court has had on the process of European integration, this paper aims at identifying and critiquing the lines of argumentation developed by the FCC in recent years in the field of European integration and decision-making before and after the Lisbon judgment in 2009, paying particular attention to the currently suspended OMT Decision proceedings in order to answer the question if a shift in the jurisprudence of the FCC from a euro-sceptical to a euro-phile approach has taken place.</p

Deportation on the Basis of Diplomatic Assurances : Permissible under the European Convention on Human Rights? : a Critical Analysis of the Judgment of the ECtHR in Abu Qatada v the United Kingdom (2012) and Its Impact on the Jurisprudence of the ECtHR

Inspired by the recently concluded litigation seeking to deport the radical Islamic preacher Abu Qatada from the UK to Jordan, this paper aims at examining the 2012 judgment of the ECtHR by focusing on the question under which circumstances a deportation with diplomatic assurances (DWA) may be permissible under the European Convention on Human Rights. Relevant background information will be provided concerning the interplay of the use of the DWA policy and the European Convention on Human Rights as well as concerning the particular circumstances that led to the ECtHR’s ruling in Abu Qatada. In the following analysis of the judgment, the focus will be on the interplay of the DWA policy and the European Convention on Human Rights with special regard to art 3 and art 6 of the Convention. Finally, the impact of this judgment on the future jurisprudence and the DWA policy will be shown. In the light of this judgment, it will be argued that the counter terrorism means of deporting a non-national terrorist suspect with diplomatic assurances seems to be compatible with the Convention if the diplomatic assurances given guarantee a sufficient protection of the human rights of the transferee, which due to the uncertain effects of the DWA policy, still has to be decided on a case-by-case basis.</p

The (in-) effectiveness of international law: A critical analysis of the rational choice theory in the light of the Ukrainian crisis 2014

The aim of this research paper is to explore the role and content of the rational choice theory in international law and to critically analyse this theory in the light of the current Ukrainian crisis: Does the Ukrainian crisis 2014 prove rational choice theorists right? Can Russia’s military intervention in Crimea and the annexation of this region be seen as the failure of the UN Charter and therefore, as an evidence for the ineffectiveness of international law? Is international law effective at all? It will be argued that the rational choice theory cannot be seen as proven right in the light of the Ukrainian crisis 2014: Although, with regard to Russia’s unlawful military intervention in Crimea, the current crisis might at first glance be considered as validating the rational choice theory and the general ineffectiveness of international law, there is as well some evidence to be found in the actions and reactions of Russia and other nation-states and institutions from which one can deduce that international law does influence states’ behaviours, that states are not merely acting out of self-interest but also out of international legal obligations and that thus the current crisis may rather serve as an example of the (overall) effectiveness of international law.</p