Consulta de Guías Docentes



Academic Year/course: 2019/20

8071 - Advanced Master in Legal Sciences

32071 - New Trends in Global and Comparative Law


Teaching Guide Information

Academic Course:
2019/20
Academic Center:
807 - Masters Centre of the Department of Law
Study:
8071 - Advanced Master in Legal Sciences
Subject:
32071 - New Trends in Global and Comparative Law
Credits:
6.0
Course:
1
Teaching languages:
Theory: Group 1: English
Teachers:
Roberto Gargarella
Teaching Period:
Third Quarter
Schedule:
Go to calendars and timetables

Presentation

The purpose of the course will be to introduce students to the knowledge of central themes, authors and texts in global and comparative law. The objective is that the students will conclude the course with a broad overview of the main discussions in the area, so they can choose some topics of their interests, for future research.

Contents

  1.  Introduction: Constitutionalism and democracy

B. Ackerman, (1984), “The Storrs Lectures: Discovering the Constitution”, 93 Yale L.J. (1984).

Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylj/vol93/iss6/5

Federalist Papers, n. 10, 51, 78

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp (James Madison)

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed51.asp (James Madison)

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed78.asp (Alexander Hamilton)

 

Further reading:

 

B. Ackerman, B. We the People. Foundations, Harvard University Press (1991), chap. 1; B. Ackerman, We the People vol. III. The Civil Rights Revolution, ch. 1.

S. Choudhry (2008), “Ackerman's Higher Lawmaking in Comparative Constitutional Perspective: Constitutional Moments as Constitutional Failures,” 6 Int'l J. Const. L. 193.

 

  1.  Democratic deliberative theory, and its limits

H. Landemore (2017) Beyond the Fact of Disagreement? “The Epistemic Turn in Deliberative Democracy,” Social Epistemology, 31:3, 277-295,

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317379342_Beyond_the_Fact_of_Disagreement_The_Epistemic_Turn_in_Deliberative_Democracy

“The Limits of Law”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/law-limits/

 

Further Reading:

 

C. Nino (1995), The Constitution of Deliberative Democracy, Yale U.P, chap. 6, “Establishing Deliberative Democracy”.

C. Nino, Los límites de la responsabilidad penal, Astrea, Buenos Aires, 1980, 271-288.

J. Elster, (1998), ed., Deliberative democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; D. Estlund (1993), ‘Making Truth Safe for Democracy’(esp pp. 92-4) in D.Copp, J. Hampton and J. Roemer The Idea of Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

J. Elster (2000), “Arguing and Bargaining in Two Constitutuent Assemblies,” 2 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 345 (2000).

Available at: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/jcl/vol2/iss2/1

 

  1.  Judicial review and weak courts

M. Tushnet, Two Versions of Judicial Supremacy, 39 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 945 (1998), http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol39/iss3/16

J. Waldron (2014), “Five to Four: Why do Bare Majorities Rule on Courts?” The Yale Law Journal, vol. 123, n. 6, 1626-2133.

https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/five-to-four-why-do-bare-majorities-rule-on-courts

 

Further Reading:

J. Waldron, “The Constitutional Conception of Democracy,” chap. 13 in J. Waldron, Democracy and Distrust, Harvard U.P. 1999. 

M. Tushnet, “Against Judicial Supremacy,” in M. Tushnet, Taking the Constitution Away from the Courts, Princeton U.P., chap. 1

 

  1.  Constitutional interpretation

C. Sunstein, (2015), “There is nothing that interpretation just is,” University of Minnesota Law School, Constitutional Commentary, Volume 30, Issue 2 (Summer 2015) [13], https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/183132

 

R. Dworkin, (1996), “The Moral Reading of the Constitution”, The New York Time Review of Books, March 21st; or introduction to Freedom’s Law, Oxford U.P. (1996), “The Moral Reading and the Majoritarian Premise,” available at

file:///C:/Users/usuario/Downloads/epdf.pub_freedoms-law-the-moral-reading-of-the-american-con.pdf

 

Further reading: 

 

C. Sunstein & A. Vermeule, (2003), "Interpretation and Institutions," 101 Michigan Law Review 885

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=12319&context=journal_articles

R. Dworkin, (1997), “The Arduous Virtue of Fidelity: Originalism, Scalia, Tribe, and Nerve,” Fordham Law Review, vol. 65, (1997).

http://fordhamlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/pdfs/Vol_83/No_5/Dworkin_April.pdf

A.Scalia, (2005), “Law and Language,” First Things 11.https://www.firstthings.com/article/2005/11/law--language-26

 

  1.  Social movements and the law

R. Post & R. Siegel “Popular constitutionalism, departamentalism and judicial supremacy,” https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/178/

R. Post & R. Siegel (2007), “Roe Rage: Democratic Constitutionalism and Backlash,” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 42: 373 

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=990968

 

Further Reading:

 

R. Siegel (2004), “Equality Talk: Antisubordination and Anticlassification Values in Constitutional Struggles over Brown,” Harvard Law Review, 117: 1470. 

R. Cover, (1985), “Violence and the Word”, 95 Yale L.J. 1601 1985-1986.

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7025&context=ylj

  

  1.  The limits of human rights adjudication 

R. Dixon: “Constitutional Rights as Bribes” (2018) 50(3) Connecticut Law Review, UNSW Law Research Paper No. 18-60

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3246732

S. Moyn, A Powerless Companion: Human Rights in the Age of Neoliberalism, 77 Law & Contemp. Probs. 147 (2014). 

scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4711&context=lcp

 

Further Reading: S. Moyn: The Last Utopia, Harvard U.P. (2012).

  

  1.  Legal feminism, freedom of expression and pornography 

C. MacKinnon, “Not a moral issue,” Yale Law & Policy Review, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Spring, 1984), pp. 321-345; 

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1034&context=ylpr

C. MacKinnon-Ronald Dworkin (1993): “Pornography: An Exchange”, N.Y.Review of Books, October 21, 1993.

 https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1994/03/03/pornography-an-exchange/

O. Fiss (2001), “The many faces of the State”

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2324&context=fss_papers

  

Further Reading: 

R. Dworkin, “Is there a right to pornography” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Summer, 1981), pp. 177-212 “Do we have a right to pornography?” in R. Dworkin, A Matter of Principle, chap. 17.

  

  1.  “Democratic erosion” 

A. Huq & T. Ginsburg  (2018), “How to lose a Constitutional Democracy”,UCLA Law Review, Vol. 65, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2901776

Z. Luo, & A. Przeworski (2019), “Subversion by Stealth: Dynamics of Democratic Backsliding”, manuscript in file with the author. 

 

Further Reading: 

A. Przeworski (2019), Crises of democracy, Cambridge University Press; M. Graber; S. Levinson; M. Tushnet, eds. (2018), Constitutional democracy in crisis? Oxford: Oxford University Press; S. Levitsky & D. Ziblatt (2018), How Democracies Die, New York: Crown.

 

  1.  Social protests and the law

O. Fiss (1997), “The Unruly Character of Politics,” McGeorge Law Review 29 (1997): 1

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2318&context=fss_papers

R. Gargarella (2012), “Law and Social Protests” Criminal Law and Philosophy 6 (2):131-148.

 

Further Reading:

 

R.Duff (1998), “Law, Language and Community: Some Preconditions of Criminal Liability”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Summer), pp. 189-206

 

  1.  Social rights activism and democracy 

C. Sunstein, C. (2001), “Social and Economic Rights? Lessons from South Africa,” Chicago Unbound, University of Chicago Law School.

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1454&context=law_and_economics

M. Tushnet (2011), “Reflections on Judicial Enforcement of Social and Economic Rights in the Twenty-First Century,” 4 N.U.J.S. L. Rev.177.

nujslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/mark-tushnet.pdf 

C. Rodríguez (2001), Beyond the Courtroom: The Impact of Judicial Activism on Socioeconomic Rights in Latin America, Texas law review 89(7).

 http://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/r27171.pdf

 

Further reading:

S. Gloppen (2006), “Courts and Social Transformation,” in R. Gargarella, P. Domingo et al, Courts and Social Transformation in New Democracies. An institutional voice for the poor?, London: Ashgate, chap. 2.

C. Sunstein, (1993), "Against Positive Rights," 2 East European Constitutional Review 35.

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=12187&context=journal_articles

  

  1.  Dialogic constitutionalism

P. Hogg & A. Bushell (1997), “The Charter Dialogue Between Courts and Legislatures”, 35 Osgoode Hall L. J. 75

https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1612&context=ohlj

K. Roach (2004), “Dialogic Judicial Review and its Critics,” 23 Supreme Court Law Review, 49-104.https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1144790

 

Further Reading: R. Gargarella (2014), “‘We the People’ outside of the Constitution. The Dialogic Model of Constitutionalism and the System of Checks and Balances”, 67 Current Legal Problems, 1-47; K. Roach, (2001), “Constitutional and Common Law Dialogues Between the Supreme Court and Canadian Legislatures,” 80 La Revue du Barreau Canadien 481;  P. Hogg; A. Bushell, & W. Wright, W. (2007), “Charter Dialogue Revisited, -Or much Ado About Metaphors”, 45 Osgoode Hall L. J. 1. 

https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1254&context=ohlj; K. Roach (2019) “Dialogic Remedies,”  International Journal of Constitutional Law, Volume 17, Issue 3, July 2019, Pages 860–883,

 

  1.  The new wave of inclusive assemblies

H. Landemore (2015) “Inclusive Constitution-Making: the Icelandic Experiment,” Journal of Political Philosophy, https://www.academia.edu/5289629/Inclusive_Constitution-Making_the_Icelandic_Experiment

S. Suteu (2015), “Constitutional Conventions in the Digital Era”, in https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1748&context=iclr

 

Further Reading: S. Suteu & S. Tierney “Squaring the Circle? Bringing Deliberation and Participation Together in Processes of Constitution Making” in R. Levy et al, eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Deliberative Constitutionalism, Cambridge U.P., 2018.

H. Landemore, (2018),  Referendums Are Never Merely Referendums: On the Need to Make Popular Vote Processes More Deliberative, Swiss Political Science Review, Volume24, Issue3, September, 320-327

 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spsr.12314

Teaching Methods

The course is conceived as an interactive seminar in which students are required to participate in the discussion of practical cases and related readings. 

The students are required to attend at least 80% of the sessions. Some flexibility may be considered in exceptional cases.

Evaluation

The final assessment of the students will be determined as follows:

1) Participation in the class discussion: 20%

2) Presentation of an assigned topic: 30%

3) Final essay (individual work): 50%

With regard to the oral presentation, students will be in charge of leading the discussion of at least one of the topics of the course. In their presentation, students have to demonstrate that they have carefully considered and understood the issues under examination.

The final essay consists of a short text which addresses one of the issues considered in the course (a topic, related to certain authors and texts), which is different from the one they have presented in class.

Bibliography and information resources

 

See also above "Contents" for further reading.


Academic Year/course: 2019/20

8071 - Advanced Master in Legal Sciences

32071 - New Trends in Global and Comparative Law


Informació de la Guia Docent

Academic Course:
2019/20
Academic Center:
807 - Masters Centre of the Department of Law
Study:
8071 - Advanced Master in Legal Sciences
Subject:
32071 - New Trends in Global and Comparative Law
Credits:
6.0
Course:
1
Teaching languages:
Theory: Group 1: English
Teachers:
Roberto Gargarella
Teaching Period:
Third Quarter
Schedule:
Go to calendars and timetables

Presentation

The purpose of the course will be to introduce students to the knowledge of central themes, authors and texts in global and comparative law. The objective is that the students will conclude the course with a broad overview of the main discussions in the area, so they can choose some topics of their interests, for future research.

Contents

  1.  Introduction: Constitutionalism and democracy

B. Ackerman, (1984), “The Storrs Lectures: Discovering the Constitution”, 93 Yale L.J. (1984).

Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylj/vol93/iss6/5

Federalist Papers, n. 10, 51, 78

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp (James Madison)

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed51.asp (James Madison)

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed78.asp (Alexander Hamilton)

 

Further reading:

 

B. Ackerman, B. We the People. Foundations, Harvard University Press (1991), chap. 1; B. Ackerman, We the People vol. III. The Civil Rights Revolution, ch. 1.

S. Choudhry (2008), “Ackerman's Higher Lawmaking in Comparative Constitutional Perspective: Constitutional Moments as Constitutional Failures,” 6 Int'l J. Const. L. 193.

 

  1.  Democratic deliberative theory, and its limits

H. Landemore (2017) Beyond the Fact of Disagreement? “The Epistemic Turn in Deliberative Democracy,” Social Epistemology, 31:3, 277-295,

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317379342_Beyond_the_Fact_of_Disagreement_The_Epistemic_Turn_in_Deliberative_Democracy

“The Limits of Law”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/law-limits/

 

Further Reading:

 

C. Nino (1995), The Constitution of Deliberative Democracy, Yale U.P, chap. 6, “Establishing Deliberative Democracy”.

C. Nino, Los límites de la responsabilidad penal, Astrea, Buenos Aires, 1980, 271-288.

J. Elster, (1998), ed., Deliberative democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; D. Estlund (1993), ‘Making Truth Safe for Democracy’(esp pp. 92-4) in D.Copp, J. Hampton and J. Roemer The Idea of Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

J. Elster (2000), “Arguing and Bargaining in Two Constitutuent Assemblies,” 2 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 345 (2000).

Available at: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/jcl/vol2/iss2/1

 

  1.  Judicial review and weak courts

M. Tushnet, Two Versions of Judicial Supremacy, 39 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 945 (1998), http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol39/iss3/16

J. Waldron (2014), “Five to Four: Why do Bare Majorities Rule on Courts?” The Yale Law Journal, vol. 123, n. 6, 1626-2133.

https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/five-to-four-why-do-bare-majorities-rule-on-courts

 

Further Reading:

J. Waldron, “The Constitutional Conception of Democracy,” chap. 13 in J. Waldron, Democracy and Distrust, Harvard U.P. 1999. 

M. Tushnet, “Against Judicial Supremacy,” in M. Tushnet, Taking the Constitution Away from the Courts, Princeton U.P., chap. 1

 

  1.  Constitutional interpretation

C. Sunstein, (2015), “There is nothing that interpretation just is,” University of Minnesota Law School, Constitutional Commentary, Volume 30, Issue 2 (Summer 2015) [13], https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/183132

 

R. Dworkin, (1996), “The Moral Reading of the Constitution”, The New York Time Review of Books, March 21st; or introduction to Freedom’s Law, Oxford U.P. (1996), “The Moral Reading and the Majoritarian Premise,” available at

file:///C:/Users/usuario/Downloads/epdf.pub_freedoms-law-the-moral-reading-of-the-american-con.pdf

 

Further reading: 

 

C. Sunstein & A. Vermeule, (2003), "Interpretation and Institutions," 101 Michigan Law Review 885

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=12319&context=journal_articles

R. Dworkin, (1997), “The Arduous Virtue of Fidelity: Originalism, Scalia, Tribe, and Nerve,” Fordham Law Review, vol. 65, (1997).

http://fordhamlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/pdfs/Vol_83/No_5/Dworkin_April.pdf

A.Scalia, (2005), “Law and Language,” First Things 11.https://www.firstthings.com/article/2005/11/law--language-26

 

  1.  Social movements and the law

R. Post & R. Siegel “Popular constitutionalism, departamentalism and judicial supremacy,” https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/178/

R. Post & R. Siegel (2007), “Roe Rage: Democratic Constitutionalism and Backlash,” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 42: 373 

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=990968

 

Further Reading:

 

R. Siegel (2004), “Equality Talk: Antisubordination and Anticlassification Values in Constitutional Struggles over Brown,” Harvard Law Review, 117: 1470. 

R. Cover, (1985), “Violence and the Word”, 95 Yale L.J. 1601 1985-1986.

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7025&context=ylj

  

  1.  The limits of human rights adjudication 

R. Dixon: “Constitutional Rights as Bribes” (2018) 50(3) Connecticut Law Review, UNSW Law Research Paper No. 18-60

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3246732

S. Moyn, A Powerless Companion: Human Rights in the Age of Neoliberalism, 77 Law & Contemp. Probs. 147 (2014). 

scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4711&context=lcp

 

Further Reading: S. Moyn: The Last Utopia, Harvard U.P. (2012).

  

  1.  Legal feminism, freedom of expression and pornography 

C. MacKinnon, “Not a moral issue,” Yale Law & Policy Review, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Spring, 1984), pp. 321-345; 

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1034&context=ylpr

C. MacKinnon-Ronald Dworkin (1993): “Pornography: An Exchange”, N.Y.Review of Books, October 21, 1993.

 https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1994/03/03/pornography-an-exchange/

O. Fiss (2001), “The many faces of the State”

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2324&context=fss_papers

  

Further Reading: 

R. Dworkin, “Is there a right to pornography” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Summer, 1981), pp. 177-212 “Do we have a right to pornography?” in R. Dworkin, A Matter of Principle, chap. 17.

  

  1.  “Democratic erosion” 

A. Huq & T. Ginsburg  (2018), “How to lose a Constitutional Democracy”,UCLA Law Review, Vol. 65, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2901776

Z. Luo, & A. Przeworski (2019), “Subversion by Stealth: Dynamics of Democratic Backsliding”, manuscript in file with the author. 

 

Further Reading: 

A. Przeworski (2019), Crises of democracy, Cambridge University Press; M. Graber; S. Levinson; M. Tushnet, eds. (2018), Constitutional democracy in crisis? Oxford: Oxford University Press; S. Levitsky & D. Ziblatt (2018), How Democracies Die, New York: Crown.

 

  1.  Social protests and the law

O. Fiss (1997), “The Unruly Character of Politics,” McGeorge Law Review 29 (1997): 1

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2318&context=fss_papers

R. Gargarella (2012), “Law and Social Protests” Criminal Law and Philosophy 6 (2):131-148.

 

Further Reading:

 

R.Duff (1998), “Law, Language and Community: Some Preconditions of Criminal Liability”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Summer), pp. 189-206

 

  1.  Social rights activism and democracy 

C. Sunstein, C. (2001), “Social and Economic Rights? Lessons from South Africa,” Chicago Unbound, University of Chicago Law School.

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1454&context=law_and_economics

M. Tushnet (2011), “Reflections on Judicial Enforcement of Social and Economic Rights in the Twenty-First Century,” 4 N.U.J.S. L. Rev.177.

nujslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/mark-tushnet.pdf 

C. Rodríguez (2001), Beyond the Courtroom: The Impact of Judicial Activism on Socioeconomic Rights in Latin America, Texas law review 89(7).

 http://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/r27171.pdf

 

Further reading:

S. Gloppen (2006), “Courts and Social Transformation,” in R. Gargarella, P. Domingo et al, Courts and Social Transformation in New Democracies. An institutional voice for the poor?, London: Ashgate, chap. 2.

C. Sunstein, (1993), "Against Positive Rights," 2 East European Constitutional Review 35.

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=12187&context=journal_articles

  

  1.  Dialogic constitutionalism

P. Hogg & A. Bushell (1997), “The Charter Dialogue Between Courts and Legislatures”, 35 Osgoode Hall L. J. 75

https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1612&context=ohlj

K. Roach (2004), “Dialogic Judicial Review and its Critics,” 23 Supreme Court Law Review, 49-104.https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1144790

 

Further Reading: R. Gargarella (2014), “‘We the People’ outside of the Constitution. The Dialogic Model of Constitutionalism and the System of Checks and Balances”, 67 Current Legal Problems, 1-47; K. Roach, (2001), “Constitutional and Common Law Dialogues Between the Supreme Court and Canadian Legislatures,” 80 La Revue du Barreau Canadien 481;  P. Hogg; A. Bushell, & W. Wright, W. (2007), “Charter Dialogue Revisited, -Or much Ado About Metaphors”, 45 Osgoode Hall L. J. 1. 

https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1254&context=ohlj; K. Roach (2019) “Dialogic Remedies,”  International Journal of Constitutional Law, Volume 17, Issue 3, July 2019, Pages 860–883,

 

  1.  The new wave of inclusive assemblies

H. Landemore (2015) “Inclusive Constitution-Making: the Icelandic Experiment,” Journal of Political Philosophy, https://www.academia.edu/5289629/Inclusive_Constitution-Making_the_Icelandic_Experiment

S. Suteu (2015), “Constitutional Conventions in the Digital Era”, in https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1748&context=iclr

 

Further Reading: S. Suteu & S. Tierney “Squaring the Circle? Bringing Deliberation and Participation Together in Processes of Constitution Making” in R. Levy et al, eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Deliberative Constitutionalism, Cambridge U.P., 2018.

H. Landemore, (2018),  Referendums Are Never Merely Referendums: On the Need to Make Popular Vote Processes More Deliberative, Swiss Political Science Review, Volume24, Issue3, September, 320-327

 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spsr.12314

Teaching Methods

The course is conceived as an interactive seminar in which students are required to participate in the discussion of practical cases and related readings. 

The students are required to attend at least 80% of the sessions. Some flexibility may be considered in exceptional cases.

Evaluation

The final assessment of the students will be determined as follows:

1) Participation in the class discussion: 20%

2) Presentation of an assigned topic: 30%

3) Final essay (individual work): 50%

With regard to the oral presentation, students will be in charge of leading the discussion of at least one of the topics of the course. In their presentation, students have to demonstrate that they have carefully considered and understood the issues under examination.

The final essay consists of a short text which addresses one of the issues considered in the course (a topic, related to certain authors and texts), which is different from the one they have presented in class.

Bibliography and information resources

 

See also above "Contents" for further reading.


Academic Year/course: 2019/20

8071 - Advanced Master in Legal Sciences

32071 - New Trends in Global and Comparative Law


Información de la Guía Docente

Academic Course:
2019/20
Academic Center:
807 - Masters Centre of the Department of Law
Study:
8071 - Advanced Master in Legal Sciences
Subject:
32071 - New Trends in Global and Comparative Law
Credits:
6.0
Course:
1
Teaching languages:
Theory: Group 1: English
Teachers:
Roberto Gargarella
Teaching Period:
Third Quarter
Schedule:
Go to calendars and timetables

Presentation

The purpose of the course will be to introduce students to the knowledge of central themes, authors and texts in global and comparative law. The objective is that the students will conclude the course with a broad overview of the main discussions in the area, so they can choose some topics of their interests, for future research.

Contents

  1.  Introduction: Constitutionalism and democracy

B. Ackerman, (1984), “The Storrs Lectures: Discovering the Constitution”, 93 Yale L.J. (1984).

Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylj/vol93/iss6/5

Federalist Papers, n. 10, 51, 78

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp (James Madison)

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed51.asp (James Madison)

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed78.asp (Alexander Hamilton)

 

Further reading:

 

B. Ackerman, B. We the People. Foundations, Harvard University Press (1991), chap. 1; B. Ackerman, We the People vol. III. The Civil Rights Revolution, ch. 1.

S. Choudhry (2008), “Ackerman's Higher Lawmaking in Comparative Constitutional Perspective: Constitutional Moments as Constitutional Failures,” 6 Int'l J. Const. L. 193.

 

  1.  Democratic deliberative theory, and its limits

H. Landemore (2017) Beyond the Fact of Disagreement? “The Epistemic Turn in Deliberative Democracy,” Social Epistemology, 31:3, 277-295,

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317379342_Beyond_the_Fact_of_Disagreement_The_Epistemic_Turn_in_Deliberative_Democracy

“The Limits of Law”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/law-limits/

 

Further Reading:

 

C. Nino (1995), The Constitution of Deliberative Democracy, Yale U.P, chap. 6, “Establishing Deliberative Democracy”.

C. Nino, Los límites de la responsabilidad penal, Astrea, Buenos Aires, 1980, 271-288.

J. Elster, (1998), ed., Deliberative democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; D. Estlund (1993), ‘Making Truth Safe for Democracy’(esp pp. 92-4) in D.Copp, J. Hampton and J. Roemer The Idea of Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

J. Elster (2000), “Arguing and Bargaining in Two Constitutuent Assemblies,” 2 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 345 (2000).

Available at: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/jcl/vol2/iss2/1

 

  1.  Judicial review and weak courts

M. Tushnet, Two Versions of Judicial Supremacy, 39 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 945 (1998), http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol39/iss3/16

J. Waldron (2014), “Five to Four: Why do Bare Majorities Rule on Courts?” The Yale Law Journal, vol. 123, n. 6, 1626-2133.

https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/five-to-four-why-do-bare-majorities-rule-on-courts

 

Further Reading:

J. Waldron, “The Constitutional Conception of Democracy,” chap. 13 in J. Waldron, Democracy and Distrust, Harvard U.P. 1999. 

M. Tushnet, “Against Judicial Supremacy,” in M. Tushnet, Taking the Constitution Away from the Courts, Princeton U.P., chap. 1

 

  1.  Constitutional interpretation

C. Sunstein, (2015), “There is nothing that interpretation just is,” University of Minnesota Law School, Constitutional Commentary, Volume 30, Issue 2 (Summer 2015) [13], https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/183132

 

R. Dworkin, (1996), “The Moral Reading of the Constitution”, The New York Time Review of Books, March 21st; or introduction to Freedom’s Law, Oxford U.P. (1996), “The Moral Reading and the Majoritarian Premise,” available at

file:///C:/Users/usuario/Downloads/epdf.pub_freedoms-law-the-moral-reading-of-the-american-con.pdf

 

Further reading: 

 

C. Sunstein & A. Vermeule, (2003), "Interpretation and Institutions," 101 Michigan Law Review 885

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=12319&context=journal_articles

R. Dworkin, (1997), “The Arduous Virtue of Fidelity: Originalism, Scalia, Tribe, and Nerve,” Fordham Law Review, vol. 65, (1997).

http://fordhamlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/pdfs/Vol_83/No_5/Dworkin_April.pdf

A.Scalia, (2005), “Law and Language,” First Things 11.https://www.firstthings.com/article/2005/11/law--language-26

 

  1.  Social movements and the law

R. Post & R. Siegel “Popular constitutionalism, departamentalism and judicial supremacy,” https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/178/

R. Post & R. Siegel (2007), “Roe Rage: Democratic Constitutionalism and Backlash,” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 42: 373 

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=990968

 

Further Reading:

 

R. Siegel (2004), “Equality Talk: Antisubordination and Anticlassification Values in Constitutional Struggles over Brown,” Harvard Law Review, 117: 1470. 

R. Cover, (1985), “Violence and the Word”, 95 Yale L.J. 1601 1985-1986.

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7025&context=ylj

  

  1.  The limits of human rights adjudication 

R. Dixon: “Constitutional Rights as Bribes” (2018) 50(3) Connecticut Law Review, UNSW Law Research Paper No. 18-60

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3246732

S. Moyn, A Powerless Companion: Human Rights in the Age of Neoliberalism, 77 Law & Contemp. Probs. 147 (2014). 

scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4711&context=lcp

 

Further Reading: S. Moyn: The Last Utopia, Harvard U.P. (2012).

  

  1.  Legal feminism, freedom of expression and pornography 

C. MacKinnon, “Not a moral issue,” Yale Law & Policy Review, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Spring, 1984), pp. 321-345; 

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1034&context=ylpr

C. MacKinnon-Ronald Dworkin (1993): “Pornography: An Exchange”, N.Y.Review of Books, October 21, 1993.

 https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1994/03/03/pornography-an-exchange/

O. Fiss (2001), “The many faces of the State”

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2324&context=fss_papers

  

Further Reading: 

R. Dworkin, “Is there a right to pornography” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Summer, 1981), pp. 177-212 “Do we have a right to pornography?” in R. Dworkin, A Matter of Principle, chap. 17.

  

  1.  “Democratic erosion” 

A. Huq & T. Ginsburg  (2018), “How to lose a Constitutional Democracy”,UCLA Law Review, Vol. 65, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2901776

Z. Luo, & A. Przeworski (2019), “Subversion by Stealth: Dynamics of Democratic Backsliding”, manuscript in file with the author. 

 

Further Reading: 

A. Przeworski (2019), Crises of democracy, Cambridge University Press; M. Graber; S. Levinson; M. Tushnet, eds. (2018), Constitutional democracy in crisis? Oxford: Oxford University Press; S. Levitsky & D. Ziblatt (2018), How Democracies Die, New York: Crown.

 

  1.  Social protests and the law

O. Fiss (1997), “The Unruly Character of Politics,” McGeorge Law Review 29 (1997): 1

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2318&context=fss_papers

R. Gargarella (2012), “Law and Social Protests” Criminal Law and Philosophy 6 (2):131-148.

 

Further Reading:

 

R.Duff (1998), “Law, Language and Community: Some Preconditions of Criminal Liability”, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Summer), pp. 189-206

 

  1.  Social rights activism and democracy 

C. Sunstein, C. (2001), “Social and Economic Rights? Lessons from South Africa,” Chicago Unbound, University of Chicago Law School.

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1454&context=law_and_economics

M. Tushnet (2011), “Reflections on Judicial Enforcement of Social and Economic Rights in the Twenty-First Century,” 4 N.U.J.S. L. Rev.177.

nujslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/mark-tushnet.pdf 

C. Rodríguez (2001), Beyond the Courtroom: The Impact of Judicial Activism on Socioeconomic Rights in Latin America, Texas law review 89(7).

 http://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/r27171.pdf

 

Further reading:

S. Gloppen (2006), “Courts and Social Transformation,” in R. Gargarella, P. Domingo et al, Courts and Social Transformation in New Democracies. An institutional voice for the poor?, London: Ashgate, chap. 2.

C. Sunstein, (1993), "Against Positive Rights," 2 East European Constitutional Review 35.

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=12187&context=journal_articles

  

  1.  Dialogic constitutionalism

P. Hogg & A. Bushell (1997), “The Charter Dialogue Between Courts and Legislatures”, 35 Osgoode Hall L. J. 75

https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1612&context=ohlj

K. Roach (2004), “Dialogic Judicial Review and its Critics,” 23 Supreme Court Law Review, 49-104.https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1144790

 

Further Reading: R. Gargarella (2014), “‘We the People’ outside of the Constitution. The Dialogic Model of Constitutionalism and the System of Checks and Balances”, 67 Current Legal Problems, 1-47; K. Roach, (2001), “Constitutional and Common Law Dialogues Between the Supreme Court and Canadian Legislatures,” 80 La Revue du Barreau Canadien 481;  P. Hogg; A. Bushell, & W. Wright, W. (2007), “Charter Dialogue Revisited, -Or much Ado About Metaphors”, 45 Osgoode Hall L. J. 1. 

https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1254&context=ohlj; K. Roach (2019) “Dialogic Remedies,”  International Journal of Constitutional Law, Volume 17, Issue 3, July 2019, Pages 860–883,

 

  1.  The new wave of inclusive assemblies

H. Landemore (2015) “Inclusive Constitution-Making: the Icelandic Experiment,” Journal of Political Philosophy, https://www.academia.edu/5289629/Inclusive_Constitution-Making_the_Icelandic_Experiment

S. Suteu (2015), “Constitutional Conventions in the Digital Era”, in https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1748&context=iclr

 

Further Reading: S. Suteu & S. Tierney “Squaring the Circle? Bringing Deliberation and Participation Together in Processes of Constitution Making” in R. Levy et al, eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Deliberative Constitutionalism, Cambridge U.P., 2018.

H. Landemore, (2018),  Referendums Are Never Merely Referendums: On the Need to Make Popular Vote Processes More Deliberative, Swiss Political Science Review, Volume24, Issue3, September, 320-327

 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spsr.12314

Teaching Methods

The course is conceived as an interactive seminar in which students are required to participate in the discussion of practical cases and related readings. 

The students are required to attend at least 80% of the sessions. Some flexibility may be considered in exceptional cases.

Evaluation

The final assessment of the students will be determined as follows:

1) Participation in the class discussion: 20%

2) Presentation of an assigned topic: 30%

3) Final essay (individual work): 50%

With regard to the oral presentation, students will be in charge of leading the discussion of at least one of the topics of the course. In their presentation, students have to demonstrate that they have carefully considered and understood the issues under examination.

The final essay consists of a short text which addresses one of the issues considered in the course (a topic, related to certain authors and texts), which is different from the one they have presented in class.

Bibliography and information resources

 

See also above "Contents" for further reading.