The Wuthering Heights of Constitutional Amendment: A Portrait of Contemporary Theory and Practice

Pages 938–944, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avaa033

Issue Section: A Symposium on Richard Albert’s Constitutional Amendments. Richard Albert is the contemporary scholar who has done the most to place constitutional amendment in the global academic spotlight and invite (and actively seek the means to generate) a broad, inclusive, and refreshing discussion on their many dimensions.

A Symposium on Richard Albert’s Constitutional Amendments: Dismemberment or Amendment?

Pages 934–937, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avaa034

Issue Section: A Symposium on Richard Albert’s Constitutional Amendments. “When is a constitutional amendment an amendment in name alone?”1 Richard Albert poses that question at the very start of Constitutional Amendments: Making, Breaking and Changing Constitutions

A Symposium on Richard Albert’s Constitutional Amendments: Constitutional Amendment, Unamendability, and the Democratic Paradox

Pages 929–933, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avaa035

Issue Section: A Symposium on Richard Albert’s Constitutional Amendments. Richard Albert has written a very interesting book discussing various methods of constitutional amendment, which offers a sophisticated multilevel analysis of the topic.

The Question of Comparison

Pages 893–928, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avab003

Comparison is a key component of legal reasoning. We move merrily from like to like within the doctrine of precedent. We invoke comparison whenever we distinguish or apply a case. This Article begins by elucidating how comparison is present in law.

Mapping Saudi Criminal Law

Pages 836–892, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avaa032

This Article maps the criminal law system in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia enacted a criminal procedure code in 2001, but it lacks a comprehensive penal code, relying instead on (i) identifications of certain acts as violations of the law (from public behavior to matters of the state administrative cogwheel) scattered in various pieces of legislation…

International Law and Regional Norm Smuggling: How the EU and ASEAN Redefined the Global Regime on Human Trafficking

Pages 801–835, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avaa030

The European Union (EU) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have developed fundamentally different regional regimes to address human trafficking despite both drawing on the framework established by the U.N. Palermo Protocol.

Informal Institutional Elements as Both Preconditions and Consequences of Effective Formal Legal Rules: The Failure of Constitutional Institution Building in Hungary

Pages 760–800, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avaa031

Institutions are made up of the interplay of three components: (i) formal rules, (ii) actual practices, and (iii) narratives (the last two are referred to jointly as informal institutional elements). However, lawyers in post-socialist countries do not see law through institutionalist lenses, but often nurture a false and simplistic idea of the law…

Normal Rights, Just New: Understanding the Judicial Enforcement of Socioeconomic Rights

Pages 722–759, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avaa027

A common skeptical view holds that socioeconomic rights are a different kind of right than civil-political rights. Even those who support justiciable socioeconomic rights often see them as a different kind of right with special challenges. I argue that this view is wrong. 

Personal Jurisdiction in Comparative Context

Pages 701–721, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avaa020

This Article places the recent evolution of U.S. personal jurisdiction in comparative context. Comparativism helps illuminate and explain both the modest convergences and the more pervasive divergences.

Hyper-Legalism and Obfuscation: How States Evade Their International Obligations Towards Refugees

Pages 479–516, https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avaa019

This Article examines how wealthy democratic states evade and avoid their international obligations towards refugees. The focus is on two strategies. The first is hyper-legalism—an overly formalistic bad-faith approach to interpreting international law. The second is obfuscation, which involves secrecy about what actions the government is taking and deliberate silence as to the purported legal justifications.