Parliamentary Affairs Advance Access originally published online on June 8, 2009
Parliamentary Affairs 2009 62(3):499-502; doi:10.1093/pa/gsp014
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© The Author [2009]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Hansard Society for Parliamentary Government; all rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
Juridification, Sovereignty and Separation of Powers
| The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below. |
MARK Bevir is right to highlight a number of similar concerns that underpin our respective views; equally he is right to note that our responses to these concerns differ. In suggesting that Bevir's article portrayed the juridification of the constitution as an incontrovertible and relentless process, I did not mean to suggest that Bevir himself supported the fact that it should be so, as he seems to think. Rather, my suggestion was that the tone of Bevir's piece was one of resignation; a lament for the hopes of representative and—more saliently—participatory democracy in an increasingly judicio-centric constitution. It is on this basis that I suggest that Bevir treats law as being apart from politics; by appearing to suggest that the developments identified as juridification are an unfortunate taint on the democratic or political process, rather than a necessary characteristic of a democracy under