Constitution transformation

International Human Rights Law and Domestic Constitutional Law: Internationalisation of Constitutional Law in Hong Kong

As is well known, different countries may have a different attitude toward the formal rank of international human rights law in domestic legal order. In those countries that qualify the ratified international human rights law merely as statute, the formal rank of international human rights law is often used as an argument against the binding force of international human rights law on domestic constitutional law. Through a comparative analysis between Germany and Taiwan, though, this paper shows that, despite similar determinations on the formal rank of international (human rights) law, the German and the Taiwanese Constitutional Courts have developed quite different views on the normative significance of international human rights law to their domestic constitutional orders. The different constitutional practices in Germany and Taiwan thus not only reflect Taiwan’s unique international status, but also indicate that the formal rank of international human rights law does not have much to do with its normative binding force on domestic constitutional law. Those who use formal rank as an argument against the binding force of international human rights law on constitutional law presuppose the absolute dichotomy of international and domestic law and thereby overlook the potential compatibility between international human rights law and constitutional law. From a human rights perspective, I argue that international human rights law should not be regarded as an “external” law, but rather as a framework order which delegates domestic constitutional orders to concretize international human rights law according to their own needs or interests so as to fulfill their international task of human rights protection on national level. Viewed this way, the determination on the formal rank of international human rights law in domestic legal order matters only because it has to do with the determination of a certain constitutional order on the way in which it concretizes international human rights law.

Constitutional Fragments On the Interaction of Constitutionalization and Fragmentation in International Law

This chapter illustrates the role of international and foreign law in domestic constitutional law. Through the case analysis of South Africa (a post conflict state) and the United States (often seen as a country that is not too friendly to international and foreign legal systems), it discusses the role of international and foreign law in reconciling the regional development of the rule of law in a country, by working closely together with domestic constitutional law. The domestic courts both in the United States and South Africa, whenever they deem it appropriate, do consider international and foreign law in the resolution of disputes before them. The conditions under which each jurisdiction may resort to foreign or international law, as well as the criteria used for taking them into consideration, vary. However, most importantly, this practice should be encouraged as it promotes the uniform interpretation of international law and the progressive advancement of norms world-wide, which are aspects that are especially important in the field of human rights.

The chapter considers whether the substantive standards of investment protection contained in investment treaties can be understood as an emerging form of global constitutional law. It argues that investment treaty law is an example of what the global constitutionalism literature refers to as 'supplementary constitutionalization', being a type of international law which addresses issues that have traditionally been regulated principally by domestic constitutional and administrative law. Undertaking a detailed analysis of three standards of treatment (the rules on expropriation, fair and equitable treatment, and national treatment), the chapter advances existing debates over whether the investment treaty regime exhibits 'constitution-like' qualities. The supplementary constitutionalization perspective helps better understand the two-way national-international interaction that is central to the investment treaty regime. The perspective also foregrounds key normative questions regarding how the investment treaty regime can reshape domestic constitutional balances.

Carter and Mendis1 provide some welcome clarity to their methods to estimate Plasmodium falciparum morbidity in regions of the world outside of Africa.2 The entry point to their estimation of morbid burdens is malaria-specific deaths reported by national governments. These reflect national mortality statistics generated through civil registration systems that allow for cause of death reporting and invariably only represent deaths that occur in health facilities able to diagnose malaria. In many resource-poor settings, these recorded events represent only a small fraction of the universe of mortality in a given community.3,4 To redress this, Carter and Mendis have adjusted for under-reporting rates. How this was achieved in the absence of comparisons with prospective demographic surveillance system data remains unclear. To illustrate the problem inherent in any method using national vital event reporting systems, one need look no further than the national malaria mortality data reported in the WHO’s 2005 World Malaria Report.5 In 2003, mortality data are available for only 29 of 49 countries at risk of malaria transmission outside of Africa; a total of 5,865 malaria deaths were reported; 42% were reported from a single country—Myanmar. Sri Lanka reported only two malaria deaths. Estimates of reporting coverage were provided for only four countries. Despite this uncertainty, Carter and Mendis apply a series of country-specific case-fatality estimates derived from a combination of expert consultation, personal opinion, and unreferenced literature. This step in their calculations is critically dependent upon reliable estimates of the true incidence of malaria morbidity and mortality. The probability of a clinical event resulting in death is the subject of fierce scientific debate surrounding the relationships between acquired functional immunity,6,7 access to care,8 and the role of cross-species protection9,10 versus disease outcome. Outside Africa there are only a handful of carefully conducted studies of P. falciparum clinical incidence and mortality undertaken using active-case detection methods within well-characterized populations subjected to prospective demographic surveillance with cause-of-death attribution of all fatal events.11,12 Empirical evidence upon which to reliably model global variations in case-fatality is largely absent, and therefore estimating subregional case-fatalities must be the subject of guesswork and speculation. The area of largest uncertainty, for which Carter and Mendis fail to define in their methodology, is the denominator. The numbers of people living under differing levels of P. falciparum transmission risk is arguably the single largest determinant of precision for morbidity and mortality burdens definitions globally.13 Our approach to defining population-attributable risks involved a conservative downregulation of historically mapped global malaria endemicity distributions.14 We acknowledged that these must be improved during future iterations of the estimation of malaria burden worldwide. In 2005, we started to extend our earlier work on transmission mapping to other regions of the world using empirical parasite rate survey data within spatially explicit models of dominant vector species P. falciparum transmission globally—the Malaria Atlas Project (MAP). These should provide a more robust and dynamic approach to defining the denominators for future disease burden estimations. This is particularly important for the rapidly changing ecological context of the Western Pacific and Southeast Asian regions, which are home to some of the most densely populated malarious areas on the planet.13,14 Rather than make assumptions about the quality of national civil reporting systems, presumptions about the complex nature of case-fatality, and construct theoretical models to extrapolate morbidity incidence, we have elected to use empirical data on malaria morbidity recorded through active case-detection.14 Herein lies the most obvious difference in the estimates of malaria burden outside of Africa. In 1999, the WHO15 chose to use our method of morbidity estimation for Africa16 but adopted the method used by Mendis and colleagues2 for all other regions on the grounds that there were insufficient empirical data and maps of malaria risk to reproduce what we were able to provide for Africa. This is clearly no longer true, and our paper in Nature is the first attempt to model risks at a global scale using a single method and driven by empirical data.14 In the absence of universal, complete national health reporting systems, we must continue to use informed epidemiological approaches to estimating disease burdens worldwide. We concur with Carter and Mendis that any approach that attempts to model imperfect data will produce margins of error around the true estimate. These must be made explicit, quantified, and transparent. We are therefore grateful to the authors in their elaboration of the methods originally provided in 2001, but the authors fall short of quantifying their likely errors or providing the data used in their calculations of under-reporting of national malaria-specific mortality. Ignoring semantics, our estimates based on transparent and reproducible methods are three times higher14 than those of Carter and Mendis.2,15 Being able to compare methods, input data, and measurements of uncertainty is a fundamental prerequisite to the science that underpins global disease burden estimation.17

Constitutional and international law often interrelate and regulate certain areas differently. The legal scholar’s viewpoint significantly determines his or her approach to the role of international and constitutional law in certain legal circumstances. This article focuses on the issue of determining the place of international treaties and generally recognized international law principles and norms in Ukraine’s domestic legal system. Ukraine has a well-established practice of automatically recognizing international treaties’ priority over its norms of domestic legislation, but this priority cannot be regarded as absolute. This article argues that legal scholars advance different arguments on this because they apply different approaches – approaches that originate either in constitutional or international law.

Since the end of the cold war the world and the international relations have changed dramatically. One of the changes is the spread of generally acknowledged values. This has diminished the scope of domestic jurisdiction or the so-called domaine réservé of the State and has caused that human rights, democracy and the rule of law form an inseparable and steadfast trinity or trilogy of international law. However, which consequences this major development has with regard to international law, is not clarified in all aspects yet or even picked out as a central theme. One aspect of this change is that democracy is a reality in international law. This reality has many aspects and features. One of these aspects is that the adherence to democracy is more and more advancing into the field of the recognition of States and Goverments. Recognition is a unilateral act performed by the Government of the recognizing State. Recognition of States must be distinguished from recognition of Governments, each form having its own theories and practices. However, an identic pattern is that democracy is becoming a precondition for the recognition of new States and Goverments. This can be exemplified with the »Declaration on the Guidelines on the Recognition of the New States in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union« accepted by the EC Foreign Ministers on 16 December 1991. In this declaration the EC-Member-States demanded inter alia, also the adherence to democracy from the new States. These criteria were also applied to the States emerging from the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Additionally, with regard to the recognition of Montenegro, Kosovo and further new States, a number of countries stressed that their recognition was because of the clearly visible democracy improvements. The same applies to the recognition of new Goverments. A very prominent example is the so-called Tobar-doctrine of 1907 according to which recognition of a Government should only be granted if the respective administration came to power by legitimate democratic means. This idea has become an international leitmotif in the last couple of years. In practice States frequently condemne coups détat of democratically elected Goverments and object to recognize the coup leaders. Therefore, the effective control over the States territory is not the only criterion anymore for the recognition of an authority as the Government of a State. This State practice is also accompanied by the necessary opinio juris. It is today definitly allowed under international law to link the recognition of a State or a Goverment to the adherence of certain democratic standards. Furthermore, in certain regions of the world like Europe and America it is today already an obligation to restrain a State or a Goverment the recognition, if only basic democratic standards are not fulfilled. In the residual parts of the world this process is at least in statu nascendi. For the future this development implies a number of challenges, as the reluctance of granting a recognition can cause serious legal uncertainty. However, at the same time the new path of international practice might lead to more security, as it can also hold possible coup leaders off overthrowing a Goverment. But the future will show this.

Immigration detention is costly, ineffective and raises a number of human rights concerns. Numerous studies have demonstrated the detrimental effect of such detention on states and individuals. This prompted the States to search for alternative solutions that would, on the one hand – assist in reaching the objectives of migration control of foreigners on their territories, on the other – ensure that human rights of migrants and refugees are not undermined. Although various legal models of alternatives to detention (ATDs) already exist, the alternatives are still finding obstacles on their way to legislation and practice of various States. The research paper dwells into the newest developments in international law and State practice with regard to regulation, application and challenges of ATDs taking into consideration the particular situation of unaccompanied minors. It focuses on the analysis of the benefits and setbacks of ATDs available throughout different regions of the world and examines the relevance of ATD models for transit and destination countries,

Over the past few decades, the complex process of globalization has dissolved the traditional concept of state sovereignty and neutralized the clear distinction between national and international law.Thus, legal scholarship has formulate alternative conceptual schemes to frame the fragmentation of the new global legal order.In the paper, I focus on the two typically antithetical approaches of legal pluralism and global constitutionalism.Legal pluralism emphasizes the diversity and the multiplicity of the global legal realm, while global constitutionalism is traditionally related to concepts of unity and hierarchy, whose paradigmatic reference is the state.The aim of the inquiry is to establish a theoretical basis and provide the conceptual tools to reconcile the two opposite approaches, fi rst describing the main traits of each model, and then hypothesizing a hybrid model of plural constitutionalism.In the end, I will raise the question, from a constitutional but open point of view, whether it is really worth continuing to adopt a constitutional prospect.Alternative models (the GAL approach, for instance) may provide more suitable solutions for the complexity of the global legal world.However, a multiple model that attempts to reconcile different approaches, in correspondence to the multiplicity of the current global society, could be the best option.

This chapter provides an introduction to the volume. It takes into account the cultural contexts in which the couple’s relationship is embedded. Individualism and collectivism are considered to be key cultural dimensions, which influence interpersonal behaviour in different regions of the world. The effects of globalization, of large migration flows, of technological advances and digital media, and the way these impact on how couples relate to each other are taken into account. The meaning of love and intimacy among couples in the midst of this unprecedented change are explored. Power and gender are key dynamic forces of the relationship and the emergence of couple diversity is considered as a hallmark of the twenty-first century. The running threads that are emerging across the globe are highlighted. Ways of positioning ourselves as family and couple therapists are discussed. To conclude, reference is made to ways of supporting couples and their families from a therapeutic perspective, at a community level as well as through policy.

The preceding contributions to this Agora investigate the discernible trend in Supreme Court decisions of citing international legal materials in support of a conclusion about domestic constitutional law. Discussion of this rather limited use of international law—far short of the notion that “[i] nternational law is part of our law”—implicates a deeper set of questions about democracy, sovereignty, and sources of law: Is recourse to international sources a fundamental affront to notions of democratic self-rule, or is it the natural development of a maturing legal system—one moving toward new understandings of sovereignty and popular sovereignty appropriate to an increasingly interconnected web of transnational legal relations? I will argue here for the latter position, and from this perspective the occasional illustrative citation to international norms in the course of a conventional constitutional law opinion is an invitation to broader thought more than a fire bell in the night.

The international normative framework governing the protection of foreign investments in general and the design as well as practice of investor-state dispute settlement proceedings in particular have more recently emerged as central normative »battlegrounds« for competing narratives of global constitutionalization. Against this background and in an attempt to assess this phenomenon, the contribution starts by drawing attention to the concept of narrative and how it might lead to a fruitful narrative turn in international legal scholarship. In addition, it discusses the benefits of applying a narrative perspective to the multi-faceted issue of constitutionalization in the international legal order as a whole. In this regard, it is demonstrated that an empirical approach based on a narrative perspective can be regarded as an objective method to distinguish between possible constitutional law and norms of a non-constitutional character in the international legal order; thus offering a suitable solution to address the fundamental rule of recognition problem of global constitutionalism. Based on these findings, the subsequent sections illustrate how the narrative approach contributes to assessing processes of (de-)constitutionalization in international investment law, thereby, however, also indicating the conceptual challenges arising in connection with empirical research in this particular legal realm.

Background: COVID-19 has set the globe on a difficult path. While several successes have been achieved, there are still many yet to be understood. This study provides an updated report on the progress of Covid -19 pandemic from 19th-25th January, 2022 across different countries of the world updated. Material And Method: Data from one hundred and ninety-six (196) countries and regions of the world were gotten from United Nations Geo scheme. Results were collected and subsequently compared to the values obtained for the USA. Result: Comparing available data with that of the USA, American continent had higher mortality comparism factor than infection cases, while European continents had higher infectious comparism value than mortality value. African continents, with exception of South Africa and Botswana, seems unbothered in value of mortality and infectivity. Conclusion: The new wave and virus variant have caused a renewed surge in its global consequence. There is the need to understand how Africa has survive all variant of the virus with minimal medical facilities.

The intensity of globalization processes and the role of cities in the socio-economic development of countries and regions increase at the current stage of society's development. Agglomerations that have the status of the global (world) level play the most crucial role. he purpose of the paper is to analyze the impact of globalization processes on the peculiarities of the development of urban agglomerations in the conditions of contemporary globalization, as well as to identify problems and prospects for their further evolution. The research was carried out based on the system, synergistic, informational and human-geographical approaches; using the methods of induction and deduction, comparison, analogy, analysis, synthesis, systematization, as well as mathematical, statistical and cartographic methods. Three waves characterized the spread of globalization in historical retrospect: the first one (the first half of the 20th century) described the intensive development of cities and industry, the development of transport infrastructure; the second wave (the second half of the 20th century) marked the formation of transnational, transcontinental and global corporations, the transfer of "dirty" industries to the territory of poor third world countries; the third (the beginning of the 21st century – until now) characterizes the emergence of urbanization beyond geopolitical and administrative borders. A significant trend in the contemporary development of cities is the tendency towards developing urban agglomerations, increasing their importance in contemporary spatial transformations and processes taking place on the planet. Agglomerations within regions of the world arose quite unevenly. The largest number are in the USA, Europe, and Asia, and agglomerations are growing at an accelerated pace in Africa and Latin America. Until the 20th century, the large agglomerations were formed mostly in developed countries and regions of the world due to the available resource and economic potential. Now the processes of intensive agglomeration are characterized for cities and developing countries, where the number of agglomerations is increasing. A significant increase in the number of cities and agglomerations in countries with a low level of development leads to the emergence and aggravation of global problems of modern times.