The conceptualisation of landmark judgment and constitutional revolution is a topic that is new and to a certain extent quite original. While broadly used by scholars, lawmakers and the judiciary, until recently these two concepts have never received adequate theorisation in comparative constitutional law. In this episode, our guests, Eleonora Bottini and Yaniv Roznai, share their insights on their recent work in this area, from how they got interested in the subject, to the points of connection between the two concepts, including the challenges they have encountered when engaging in such definitional endeavour.

<div>The conceptualisation of landmark judgment and constitutional revolution is a topic that is new and to a certain extent quite original. While broadly used by scholars, lawmakers and the judiciary, until recently these two concepts have never received adequate theorisation in comparative constitutional law. In this episode, our guests, Eleonora Bottini and Yaniv Roznai, share their insights on their recent work in this area, from how they got interested in the subject, to the points of connection between the two concepts, including the challenges they have encountered when engaging in such definitional endeavour.</div>

Scholarly but fun conversations about constitutions brought to you by the Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies at Melbourne Law School.

<p>Scholarly but fun conversations about constitutions brought to you by the Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies at Melbourne Law School.</p>

Constitutional Cafe

Constitutional Café brings together constitutionalists the world over for informal but scholarly conversations about important issues in constitutional law and politics. It is brought to you by a team of comparative constitutional law scholars at the Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies at Melbourne Law School. Each episode one of our team assembles a group of experts to discuss recent developments, new ideas or enduring themes in constitutional studies. We are especially interested in emerging and overlooked issues and in places and institutions that are not often discussed It is produced by a team of comparative constitutional law scholars at the Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies at Melbourne Law School and funded by The Australian Research Council. For more information and to continue the conversation, visit www.constitutional-cafe.org

<p data-v-016c8ba2="">Constitutional Café brings together constitutionalists the world over for informal but scholarly conversations about important issues in constitutional law and politics. It is brought to you by a team of comparative constitutional law scholars at the Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies at Melbourne Law School. Each episode one of our team assembles a group of experts to discuss recent developments, new ideas or enduring themes in constitutional studies. We are especially interested in emerging and overlooked issues and in places and institutions that are not often discussed It is produced by a team of comparative constitutional law scholars at the Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies at Melbourne Law School and funded by The Australian Research Council. For more information and to continue the conversation, visit www.constitutional-cafe.org</p>

The conceptualisation of landmark judgment and constitutional revolution is a topic that is new and to a certain extent quite original....

Landmark judgments, constitutional revolutions and comparative constitutional law

Chile recently saw the defeat at a national referendum of a proposed new democratic constitution. What should we make of this result, and what does it mean for the future of democratic constitutional reform in Chile and globally? Did Chilean constitution-makers try to achieve too much, too fast? Was the vote the product of opposition disinformation, or popular misunderstanding? Or was the defeat a product of deeper forces pushing against the chances of successful democratic constitutional transformation?

In this podcast, Rosalind Dixon explores these questions with an expert Chilean and comparative constitutional panel, including Professor Veronica Undagarra, Javier Cuoso and David Landau.

<p>Chile recently saw the defeat at a national referendum of a proposed new democratic constitution. What should we make of this result, and what does it mean for the future of democratic constitutional reform in Chile and globally? Did Chilean constitution-makers try to achieve too much, too fast? Was the vote the product of opposition disinformation, or popular misunderstanding? Or was the defeat a product of deeper forces pushing against the chances of successful democratic constitutional transformation?</p>
<p>In this podcast, Rosalind Dixon explores these questions with an expert Chilean and comparative constitutional panel, including Professor Veronica Undagarra, Javier Cuoso and David Landau.</p>

Democratic Constitutional Reform in Chile:  Looking Back and Forward

This podcast discusses the notion of ‘post-juristocracy’ – whether we're seeing the end of the broad global shift toward more powerful courts worldwide, which has been an ongoing trend for the almost 80 years post-World War II.
These developments include the declining legitimacy of apex courts in states like the USA and India, preventive actions against the expansion of judicial power in states like the UK, capture of previously powerful courts in countries like Hungary, as well as trends such as the increasing scholarly and policy focus on fourth branch institutions such as electoral commissions and the 'deliberative wave' that mark a shift in focus on rights protection and achieving constitutional change from courts to bodies like citizens’ assemblies.
While it’s not a monolithic phenomenon, these disparate but interacting political and scholarly trends raise a host of questions for constitutional lawyers about comparative methodology, constitutional design, and constitutional resilience.

<div>This podcast discusses the notion of ‘post-juristocracy’ – whether we're seeing the end of the broad global shift toward more powerful courts worldwide, which has been an ongoing trend for the almost 80 years post-World War II.</div><div><br></div><div>These developments include the declining legitimacy of apex courts in states like the USA and India, preventive actions against the expansion of judicial power in states like the UK, capture of previously powerful courts in countries like Hungary, as well as trends such as the increasing scholarly and policy focus on fourth branch institutions such as electoral commissions and the 'deliberative wave' that mark a shift in focus on rights protection and achieving constitutional change from courts to bodies like citizens’ assemblies.</div><div><br></div><div>While it’s not a monolithic phenomenon, these disparate but interacting political and scholarly trends raise a host of questions for constitutional lawyers about comparative methodology, constitutional design, and constitutional resilience.</div><div><br></div>

This podcast discusses the notion of 'post-juristocracy' - whether we're seeing the end of the broad global shift toward more powerful...

Post-Juristocracy - the End of Powerful Courts?

Associate Professor William Partlett speaks with Marina Agaltsova about her work at Memorial Human Rights Centre in Moscow and why that organisation is now facing liquidation. 

<div>Associate Professor William Partlett speaks with Marina Agaltsova about her work at Memorial Human Rights Centre in Moscow and why that organisation is now facing liquidation. </div>

Associate Professor William Partlett speaks with Marina Agaltsova about her work at Memorial Human Rights Centre in Moscow and why that...

Landmark judgments, constitutional revolutions and comparative constitutional law

Constitutional Cafe

In 1 playlist(s)

Constitutional Cafe

Follow podcast

Recent clips