The Politics of Public Law and Judicial Review in Pakistan
Author: Moeen Cheema
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Over the last decade, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has emerged as a powerful and overtly political institution. While the strong form of judicial review adopted by the Supreme Court has fostered the perception of a sudden and ahistorical judicialisation of politics, the judiciary's prominent role in adjudicating issues of governance and statecraft was long in the making. This book presents a deeply contextualised account of law in Pakistan and situates the judicial review jurisprudence of the superior courts in the context of historical developments in constitutional politics, evolution of state structures and broader social transformations. This book highlights that the bedrock of judicial review has remained in administrative law; it is through the consistent development of the 'Writ jurisdiction' and the judicial review of administrative action that Pakistan's superior courts have progressively carved an expansive institutional role and aggrandised themselves to the status of the regulator of the state.
That non-statutory executive powers are subject to judicial review is beyond doubt. But current judicial practice challenges prevailing theories of judicial review and raises a host of questions about the nature of official power and action. This is particularly the case for official powers not associated with the Royal Prerogative, which have been argued to comprise a “third source” of governmental authority. Looking at non-statutory powers directly, rather than incidentally, stirs up the intense but ultimately inconclusive debate about the conceptual basis of judicial review in English law. This provocative book argues that modern judges and scholars have neglected the very concepts necessary to understand the supervisory jurisdiction and that the law has become more complex than it needs to be. If we start from the concept of office and official action, rather than grand ideas about parliamentary sovereignty and the courts, the central questions answer themselves.
In times of disenchantment with democracy and 'erosion' of the system of checks and balances, the book proposes to reflect upon the main problems of our constitutional democracies, from a particular regulative ideal: that of the conversation among equals.
Political disagreement is a fact of life. Such conflict can prompt people to stand for public office and seek to realise political change. Others take a different route; they start their own country. Micronations and the Search for Sovereignty is the first comprehensive examination of the phenomenon of people purporting to secede and create their own country. It analyses why micronations are not states for the purposes of international law, considers the factors that motivate individuals to separate and found their own nation, examines the legal justifications that they offer and explores the responses of recognised sovereign states. In doing so, this book develops a rich body of material through which to reflect on conventional understandings of statehood, sovereignty and legitimate authority. Authored in a lively and accessible style, Micronations and the Search for Sovereignty will be valuable reading for scholars and general audiences.
In this book, leading experts from across the common law world assess the impact of four seminal House of Lords judgments decided in the 1960s: Ridge v Baldwin, Padfeld v Minister of Agriculture, Conway v Rimmer, and Anisminic v Foreign Compensation Commission. The 'Quartet' is generally acknowledged to have marked a turning point in the development of court-centred administrative law, and can be understood as a 'formative moment' in the emergence of modern judicial review. These cases are examined not only in terms of the points each case decided, and their contribution to administrative law doctrine, but also in terms of the underlying conception of the tasks of administrative law implicit in the Quartet. By doing so, the book sheds new light on both the complex processes through which the modern system of judicial review emerged and the constitutional choices that are implicit in its jurisprudence. It further reflects upon the implications of these historical processes for how the achievements, failings and limitations of the common law in reviewing actions of the executive can be evaluated.
This book explores how citizenship is differently gendered and performed across national and regional boundaries. Using ‘citizenship’ as its organizing concept, it is a collection of multidisciplinary approaches to legal, socio-cultural and performative aspects of gender construction and identity: violence against women, victimhood and agency, and everyday issues of socialization in a globalized world. It brings together scholars of politics, media, and performance who are committed to dialogue across both nation and discipline. This study is the culmination of a two-year project on the topic of 'Gendered Citizenship', arising from an international collaboration that has sought to develop a comparative and yet singular perspective on performance in relation to key political themes facing our countries of origin in the early decades of this century. The research is interdisciplinary and multinational, drawing on Indian, European, and North and South American contexts.