POLb1118 Constitutionalism

Fakulta sociálních studií
jaro 2020
Rozsah
1/1/0. 5 kr. Ukončení: zk.
Vyučující
Mgr. et Mgr. Jiří Baroš, Ph.D. (přednášející)
JUDr. Mgr. Ivo Pospíšil, Ph.D. (přednášející)
Garance
Mgr. et Mgr. Jiří Baroš, Ph.D.
Katedra politologie – Fakulta sociálních studií
Kontaktní osoba: Mgr. Lucie Pospíšilová
Dodavatelské pracoviště: Oddělení politologie – Katedra politologie – Fakulta sociálních studií
Rozvrh
Út 8:00–9:40 U41
Omezení zápisu do předmětu
Předmět je určen pouze studentům mateřských oborů.
Mateřské obory/plány
předmět má 29 mateřských oborů, zobrazit
Cíle předmětu
The aim of the course is to provide students with a complex view on philosophical basis of modern constitutionalism. After the introductory, mainly conceptual, lesson on fundamental concepts, democracy, and constitutionalism, the course begins with the important difference between ancient and modern constitutionalism. It traces the whole development of modern constitutionalism with the concepts with which it is logically connected, i. e. sovereignty, fundamental rights, constitutive and constituted power, separation of powers, and rule of law. It further focuses on the crucial experience of American and German post-war constitutionalism as well as on the constitutionalism in Visegrád group countries (mainly the most familiar Czech case) and at the European level.
Výstupy z učení
Through this course, students will be able to understand the whole process of emergence of modern constitutionalism. They will be able to analyze crucial theoretical concepts (separation of powers, fundamental rights, rule of law) connected with its history. Moreover, students will be able to critically evaluate disagreements in political philosophy and constitutional theory concerning such hot issues as legitimacy of constitutional review and constitutionalism at European level. At the end of this course, students shall be able to characterize the most important developments of modern constitutionalism within thorough, and philosophically non-naïve perspective.
Osnova
  • 1. Introduction (18. 2.) 2. Why Constitutionalism? Why Constitutional Democracy? (25. 2.) Compulsory reading: Murphy, Walter F. 2007. Constitutional Democracy. Creating and Maintaining a Just Political Order. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 108-146. 3. American Constitutionalism (3. 3.) Compulsory reading: Breyer, Stephen 2010. Making Our Democracy Work. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 3-72. 4. German Constitutionalism (10. 3.) Compulsory reading: Kommers, Donald P., Miller, Russell A. 2012. The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany. Durham: Duke University Press, 42-76. 5. Rechtsstaat: Separation of Powers, and Fundamental Rights (17. 3.) Alexy, Robert 2012. Rights and Liberties as Concepts. In: The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law. Eds. Michel Rosenfeld and András Sajó. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 283-297. Kavanagh, Aileen 2016: The Constitutional Separation of Powers. In: Philosophical Foundations of Constitutional Law. Eds. David Dyzenhaus, and Malcolm Thorburn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 221-239. 6. Varieties of Constitutionalism Today (24. 3.) Compulsory reading: Blokker, Paul 2013. New Democracies in Crisis? A Comparative Constitutional Study of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. London: Routledge, 13-44. 7. Self-study Week (31. 3.) 8. Legitimacy of Constitutional Review – First discussion session (7. 4.) Recommended Reading: Fallon, Richard, Jr. 2008. The Core of an Uneasy Case for Judicial Review, Harvard Law Review, 121, 1693-1736. Waldron, Jeremy 2006. The Core of the Case against Judicial Review. The Yale Law Journal, 115, 1346-1406. 9. Constitutionalism in V4 countries (14. 4.) Compulsory reading: Kosař, David, Baroš, Jiří, Dufek, Pavel 2019. The Twin Challenges to Separation of Powers in Central Europe: Technocratic Governance and Populism. European Constitutional Law Review, vol. XV, no. 3, s. 427-461. 10. Czech Constitutionalism (IP) (21. 4.) Compulsory reading: Pospíšil, Ivo 2015. Legal System and Judiciary. In: Stanislav Balík et al. Helsinki Process, Velvet Revolution of 1989 and the Czech Transformation. Praha: CEVRO, 62-71. Sadurski, Wojciech 2003. Constitutional Courts, Individual Rights, and the Problem of Judicial Activism in Postcommunist Central Europe. In: Systems of Justice in Transition. Central European Experiences since 1989. Eds. Příbáň, Jiří; Roberts, Pauline and James Young. Aldershot: Ashgate, 13-28. 11. European Constitutionalism (IP) (28. 4.) Compulsory reading: Pospíšil, Ivo 2011. The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic and European Integration in the Context of Judicial Dialogs. Lecture held at the European Graduate School for Social Sciences, Brno-Telč. Walker, Neil 2012. The Place of European Law. In: The Worlds of European Constitutionalism. Eds. Gráinne de Búrca, J.H.H. Weiler, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 57–104. Weiler, Joseph H. H. 2016. Dialogue and Distrust: the Accession of the EU to the ECHR. In: European Constitutionalism in the Context of Judicial Dialogue. Brno: Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, 11-18. 12. Does Populist Constitutionalism Exist? – Second discussion session (5. 5.) Compulsory reading: Blokker, Paul 2018. Populist Constitutionalism. In: Routledge Handbook of Global Populism. Ed. Carlos de la Torre. London: Routledge, 113-127. Halmai, Gábor 2019. Populism, authoritarianism and constitutionalism. German Law Journal, vol. 20, no. 3, 296-313. 13. The Exam (12. 5.)
Literatura
    povinná literatura
  • Blokker, Paul 2018. Populist Constitutionalism. In: Routledge Handbook of Global Populism. Ed. Carlos de la Torre. London: Routledge, 113-127.
  • Kavanagh, Aileen 2016: The Constitutional Separation of Powers. In: Philosophical Foundations of Constitutional Law. Eds. David Dyzenhaus, and Malcolm Thorburn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 221-239.
  • Kosař, David, Baroš, Jiří, Dufek, Pavel 2019. The Twin Challenges to Separation of Powers in Central Europe: Technocratic Governance and Populism. European Constitutional Law Review, vol. XV, no. 3, s. 427-461.
  • Murphy, Walter F. 2007. Constitutional Democracy. Creating and Maintaining a Just Political Order. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Walker, Neil 2012. The Place of European Law. In: The Worlds of European Constitutionalism. Eds. Gráinne de Búrca, J.H.H. Weiler, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 57–104.
  • Alexy, Robert 2012. „Rights and Liberties as Concepts. “ In: The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law. Eds. Michel Rosenfeld and András Sajó. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 283-297.
  • Kommers, Donald P., Miller, Russell A. 2012. The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany. Durham: Duke University Press.
  • Breyer, Stephen 2010. Making Our Democracy Work. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
  • Blokker, Paul 2013. New Democracies in Crisis? A Comparative Constitutional Study of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. London: Routledge.
  • Weiler, Joseph H. H. 2016. Dialogue and Distrust: the Accession of the EU to the ECHR. In: European Constitutionalism in the Context of Judicial Dialogue. Brno: Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, 11-18.
  • Pospíšil, Ivo 2015. Legal System and Judiciary. In: Stanislav Balík et al. Helsinki Process, Velvet Revolution of 1989 and the Czech Transformation. Praha: CEVRO, 62-71.
  • Halmai, Gábor 2019. Populism, authoritarianism and constitutionalism. German Law Journal, vol. 20, no. 3, 296-313.
Výukové metody
The course is taught in the form of lectures and seminars. Students are encouraged to participate actively in the seminars by posing questions of clarification and bringing up topics for discussion. Students are expected to read the required reading(s) for each seminar. Discussion sessions serve to improve the ability of students to summarize an issue and to evaluate it critically in a debate with their colleagues. Final papers serve to improve the ability of students to analyze a topic relevant to the course.
Metody hodnocení
Students will receive a final grading for the semester based on the following components: (1) Participation in one of two discussion session, which will deal with the legitimacy of constitutional review and populist constitutionalism. Before the discussion session students will create three groups: the first one will have to answer the question positively, the second one, their opponents, negatively, and the third group will serve as referees. Students will enroll into the groups during the third lesson. Five days before the discussion the defenders and opponents will submit seven-page report in which main arguments will be outlined. Reports should be uploaded to the Information system of MU (section “Odevzdávárna). In these reports it is sufficient to mention the main points and sources of your arguments. Nevertheless, the report must be prepared in a systematic way; in its first section, more general and theoretical arguments should be developed, and in the second, larger section, you should apply these arguments on the subject matter. Taking into consideration the main arguments of your opponent group, the two parties will prepare three questions for each other for a discussion session. Before the discussion, one member of referees will have been elected as a president of a discussion group. The president will preside over the discussion. It is up to him who will receive a parole. The other referees will prepare their questions for the other two parties as well. The aim of referees is to supervise the quality of arguments presented in the reports and the debate. The arguments should correspond to the facts and should be persuasive. The report will be the main source of the ten-minute speech which the discussion will start with. After the ten-minute presentation of the main points prepared by each group, the referees will preside the discussion among the parties. The questions prepared by the parties and the referees will be posed and answered. At the end of discussion (fifteen minutes before the end of the lesson) each party will have a possibility to summarize their main points (just in one-minute final speech). The referees will leave the class to vote about their verdict. If there is a parity of votes, the vote of president is decisive. At the end of the lesson they will announce their verdict. In one week after a discussion the referees will prepare a seven-page long reasoning of their ruling. The dissenting referees will prepare their separate ruling. The participation in a discussion is mandatory, it is one of the conditions to able to pass the final test. The winning party will receive two points, the points received by losing party and referees will depend on the quality of their argumentation. (2) Final paper (maximum 15 points) which should be written to the course relevant topic (length approximately 10 pages). The topic should be consulted with one of the lecturers during their office hours. Components of evaluation: original authors approach, relevant goals and methods, theoretical background, conceptualizing of the topic, structure, sources and literature. Deadline for submission: April 23, 2020; paper should be uploaded in the Information system MU, section “Odevzdávárna”. (3) Final written exam (max. 25 points): There will be a final in-class written exam, consisting of five questions based on required readings and discussions in classes. Grading: A 40 - 37 B 36-33 C 32 – 30 D 29 - 26 E 25 - 23 F 22 – 0, i. e. 25 points for final exam, 15 points for paper, special bonus: maximum 4 points for discussions.
Vyučovací jazyk
Angličtina
Další komentáře
Studijní materiály
Předmět je vyučován každoročně.
Předmět je zařazen také v obdobích jaro 2021.