Remember Flashcards

Question

What has been the effect of China's development | assistence in Africa for Africans' democratic commitment?

Answer 1

Africa's fledgling democracies' ability to obtain money and other resources from China without the democratic conditions and pressures imposed by Western donors could jeopardize efforts to promote more democratic governance across the continent.

Answer 2

1. is inaccurate/incomplete: disregards the cultural, historical, and geographical diversity 2. may reflect a western/colonizers view on Africa which can reinforce African stereotypes

Answer 3

1. Election quality is declining - Polls are increasingly rife with intimidation and violence > Elections are regular but also regularly manipulated/influenced > Coups are seen as the only acceptable tool for political change 2. Term-limits for power positions stated in the constitution are ignored 3. Suppression of the opposition 4. Suppression of freedom of speech: e.g., internet blackout > journalists aren't safe 5. Undermining rights and freedoms > e.g. an extralegal attack on the offices of an LGBTQ+ group in Ghana

Answer 4

1. Grassroot: people speaking the truth and demanding rights and justice 2. Push back against authoritarian actions and expand the boundaries of democracy and freedom 3. The growing use of social media has been highly important for pro-democracy activists 4. Rise of urbanisation and higher level education 5. Growing attachment to the institutions and demand for democracy

Answer 5

German Basic law is a rigid constitution and the UK constitution is a flexible constitution. Germanyn: constitution is a written document which has been created by its drafters at a particular point in time. Changes in the constitution can only be made via a particular amendment procedure and to a certain extent. The UK however has a flexible constitution: its constitution is based on different documents (statutes, conventions, customs etc.), which have been created over time and thus have been and are being influenced by the historical context of the country. Collectively these documents form the UK constitution. Changes in these documents do not have to go through an extensive amendment procedure and therefore changes can be made more easily and it is called a flexible constitution.

Answer 6

A rigid constitution is a written constitution, embodied in one document. - written constitutions are either granted by the ruler or ordained by the people. - can be described as a creation or product, which is always newly made and set forth. - the creation of written constitutions is influenced by the history of a country - written constitutions are often regarded as supreme law. This means firstly that the constitution has to be obeyed by every individual - all statutes, institutions and governmental activities have to be in accordance with the constitution and, in the event of inconsistency, may be declared unconstitutional and thus void - the constitution can normally only be amended by a special procedure A flexible constitution is an unwritten constitution that is made up of several laws and customs that are written down in a series of documents. -- unwritten constitutions have developed gradually, - many different institutions, people as well as legal theory contribute to the development of unwritten constitutions. - an unwritten constitution is a process of growth - unwritten constitutions are not only defined by history, but also embody and mirror history themselves - unwritten constitutions may, as a rule, be altered or abolished by the lawmaking power at any time and in any of their details.

Answer 7

- Britain is unusual in that it has an 'unwritten' constitution. Unlike the great majority of countries there is no single legal document that sets out in one place the fundamental laws outlining how the state works. - In other countries, many of whom have experienced revolution or regime change, it has been necessary to start from scratch or begin from first principles, constructing new state institutions and defining in detail their relations with each other and their citizens. - By contrast, the British Constitution has evolved over a long period of time, reflecting the relative stability of the British polity. It has never been thought necessary to consolidate the basic building blocks of this order in Britain. - What Britain has instead is an accumulation of various statutes, conventions, judicial decisions and treaties which collectively can be referred to as the British Constitution. - It is more accurate to refer to Britain's constitution as an 'uncodified' constitution, rather than an 'unwritten' one.

Answer 8

A lot of it is actually written; it's not drawn together in any single form. But like any other nation, UK has a lot of statutes, acts of Parliament that bind. And quite a number of conventions as well that constrain, that people comply with. They have no legal force, but they are complied with because they're seen as morally correct.

Answer 9

- Better appreciate and understand our own system and to broaden our world view - Comparing legal texts (macro-comparison) is only seen as a first, though necessary, step towards in-depth analysis of single features (micro-comparison). - Can provide helpful material for constitution-building and constitutional engineering - Creation and development of international organizations

Answer 10

Formal: - narrow - sets out the basic rules that apply to the government in question Substantive: - broad - contains all the fundamental rules that organize and govern the social and political entity - written or unwritten, in one or in many documents > gives power to public authorities > regulates relations between public authorities > regulates relations between public authorities and the individual

Answer 11

1. Positive obligations apply to risks which may materialise in the long term, including to future generations. 2. Protection is not limited to specific persons but to society as a whole. 3. 25% reduction target is based on global consensus, internationally accepted standards and scientific insights. In doing so, the Court placed great significance on soft law and non-binding international instruments in confirming the Netherlands’ responsibility to fulfil international commitments. 4. Whilst the ECHR does not specifically contain provisions on the protection of the environment, the Court relied upon case law from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) interpreting Articles 2 (right to life) and 8 (right to private and family life) to encompass risks posed by certain environmental issues which may have direct consequences on a person’s life, including natural disasters and hazardous industrial activities.

Answer 12

1. the State rejected the notion that it can be legally obliged to act. In short, the State argued that there is no legal obligation on the basis of which it is legally bound to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 2. the State argued that whether and to what extent emissions should be reduced is a political question in which the courts should not intervene.

Answer 13

Parliamentary sovereignty is commonly regarded as the defining principle of the British Constitution. This is the ultimate law-making power vested in a democratically elected Parliament to create or abolish any law. The courts cannot overturn or quash primary legislation passed by parliament > The rule of law – law is derived from a number of sources: > Statutes are laws passed by Parliament and are generally the highest form of law. > Conventions are unwritten practices which have developed over time and regulate the business of governing. > Common law is law developed by the courts and judges through cases. > International law. > The separation of government into executive, legislative, and judicial branches. > No ‘judicial review’: Judges are bound by Parliament, they are not to second-guess legislation*

Answer 14

> Unwritten rules of constitutional practice, vital to the nation's politics, the workings of government, but not committed into law or any written form at all. > The very existence of the office of Prime Minister, is purely conventional. So is the rule upon which they are appointed, being whoever commands the confidence of the House of Commons (the majority party leader, or head of a coalition of parties). > Another important convention is that government ministers must have a seat in Parliament in order to hold office. This is a vital aspect of what is known as the ‘Westminster system of parliamentary government’.

Answer 15

Yes, parliamentary sovereignty is often seen as the defining principle of the British Constitution. Under the UK constitution, the ultimate law-making power is vested in a democratically elected Parliament to create or abolish any law. No other person or body can by the law of England override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.

Answer 16

Positive side; any (part of an) Act of Parliament, which makes a new law/repeals/modifies an existing law, will be obeyed by the Courts. Negative side: there is no person or body of persons who can, under the English constitution, make rules which override or derogate from an Act of Parliament, or which (to express the same thing in other words) will be enforced by the Courts in contravention of an Act of Parliament.

Answer 17

1. in 1973 the UK joined the European Communities (now EU) – a supranational organization, with the European Communities Act 1972. This created a tension between the sovereignty of the EU and the Parliamentary sovereignty in the UK. However, the British point of view has always been that because, in the end, the UK decided whether or not to stay in the EU, so Parliamentary sovereignty was upheld. 2. in 1998 the UK adopted the Human Rights Act which was implemented the European Convention on Human Rights into British law. British citizens could now directly invoke Convention law and take their case to the European Court of Human Rights. BUT British courts are not authorized to quash an Act of Parliament on the basis of the HRA 1998, however. They can only issue a ‘declaration of incompatibility and then it’s up to Parliament whether or not to change the law (‘weak’ form of judicial review). So Parliamentary sovereignty is upheld under this system, too.

Answer 18

1. Flexible: as there is no separate amendment procedure, statutes/laws etc. can be changed relatively easily. 2. Not a very strong separation of powers: government is drawn from members of parliament (mostly House of Commoners), to which it is also responsible. 3. use of conventions, which is a set of non-legal rules stating the powers and obligations of the branches of government (especially executive) and their relations with eachother.

Answer 19

Prorogation marks the end of a parliamentary session (session = 5 parliamentary years). It is the formal name given to the period between the end of a session of Parliament and the State Opening of Parliament that begins the next session. The parliamentary session may also be prorogued before Parliament is dissolved. >>> parliament is temporarily not the sovereign > Prerogative power is vested legally in the Queen. Her use of that power, however, is governed by the constitutional convention (a political rather than a legal rule) that she should only do so on the advice of her ministers. > In practice, the Queen only uses these powers if this is decided by Government Ministers (who are subject to any restrictions imposed on them by statute, common law or convention). > The problem with prorogation, however, is the absence of any express legal limits on its exercise, specifically its purpose and duration.

Answer 20

In 2019, the Parliament of the United Kingdom was ordered to be prorogued by Queen Elizabeth II upon the advice of the Conservative prime minister, Boris Johnson. The prorogation of Parliament was going to be effective until the State Opening of Parliament on 14 October 2019. The advice was seen as very controversial because Parliament was to be prorogued for five weeks and reconvene just 17 days before the United Kingdom's scheduled departure from the European Union on 31 October 2019. Therefore, the move was seen as an unconstitutional attempt by the prime minister to avoid parliamentary scrutiny of the Government's Brexit plans in the closing stages of the Brexit process. Johnson and his Government defended the prorogation of Parliament as a routine political process that ordinarily follows the selection of a new prime minister and would allow the Government to refocus on a legislative agenda.

Answer 21

The UK Supreme Court held that the absence of any legal limits on prorogation was not enough to make Johnson's advice lawful. > They held that the power was limited by the extent to which it interfered with fundamental constitutional principles, namely parliamentary sovereignty and parliamentary accountability. Parliamentary Accountability = ministers (prime minister and cabinet) have to explain and provide information on what is happening in their area of responsibility. This principle is important in Westminster's democracy. > The prorogation had the effect of frustrating Parliament’s constitutional role, for which there was no justification.

Answer 22

because it was a political decision

Answer 23

> Prorogation, as a prerogative power, is subjected to judicial review. > Thus, the courts can determine both the existence and extent of a prerogative power, and therefore determine whether the executive’s exercise of it is within its legal limits. > If a power exists, and has been exercised within its legal limits, the courts can also review the lawfulness of that exercise on the grounds of judicial review (para. 35). > In determining the lawfulness of any prorogation, the Court held that the prorogation cannot (severely) interfere with constitutional principles. > However, in this case, the prorogation did conflict with two fundamental constitutional principles: parliamentary sovereignty and parliamentary accountability. > If the consequence of prorogation is in conflict with these principles (without reasonable justification) then it can be held unlawful. > This, the Court said, was a legal standard that concerned the limits or extent of the prorogation power, but one which nevertheless had to be determined on the facts.??

Answer 24

Interpretation bill would make it possible for the government to dismiss rulings from judicial reviews that he and his ministers disagree with 1. this would make the English courts overtly and dangerously political 2.

Answer 25

1. Parliamentary sovereignty: Old principle: that Parliament can make laws which everyone must obey: this would be undermined if the executive could, through the use of the prerogative, prevent Parliament from exercising its power to make laws for as long as it pleased. New principle: although the core of that principle is the rule that Acts of Parliament are the highest form of law in the UK — meaning that everyone, including the Government and the courts, must obey such law — the Supreme Court observed that other implications come from the principle. The idea of parliamentary sovereignty would not mean anything if Parliament could be prevented from enacting legislation by an executive capable of suspending Parliament for any reason and for any length of time. Therefore, the UKSC stated, prorogation is subjected to judicial review. This has not been stated before and thus this ruling expresses a new constitutional principle. 2. Parliamentary accountability: Old principle: the idea that Prime Minister and Cabinet are collectively responsible and accountable to Parliament New principle: the Court invoked the principle that the Government is accountable to Parliament, even while Parliament is prorogued. Thus, it would be inconsistent with this principle if the executive could evade scrutiny whenever it pleased by having an unconstrained ability to prorogate Parliament.

Answer 26

Ministerial accountability (responsibility). E.g., the French government is accountable to the National Assembly: if the National Assembly rejects a Parliament Member's policy and votes on no confidence, s/he must resign. E.g., The German Chancellor (and his/her federal gov.) is accountable to the Bundestag (German Parliament), meaning that they have to justify their actions before it and may face a sanction.

Answer 27

Even though the case is a ‘one off’ (SC), the SC sets constitutional standards for the future. > This case sets out - the PM’s prerogative powers and their limits - The role of the courts in regard to prerogative powers - The constitutional position of Parliament (sovereignty and accountability).

Answer 28

The Federalist Papers is a collection of 85 articles and essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. > The authors intended to influence the voters to endorse the Constitution. > With the Constitution needing approval from nine of thirteen states, the press was overwhelmed with essays about the controversial document. > The authors argued that the system, as proposed by the constitution, would unify the states and empower the federal government to act effectively in the national interest.

Answer 29

Ambition is the drive to attain something (power, money, status, etc). Similarly, in Government terms, ambition can be driving the official to be in Government. Madison was worried that human nature is selfish/bad (if man were angels we would not need Government) and therefore, humans need to be protected from each other through control. This is expressed in the US Constitution, through checks and balances, which oughts to carefully separate and regulate powers from different branches. In this system of checks and balances, every power is balanced by countervailing power.

Answer 30

Under the aggregate of his constitutional powers as the Nation’s Chief Executive and the Commander-in-Chief: - in case of national emergency, the president is authorized to give an executive order when it is in national interest - this could be argued to be the case because of participation in Korean war, for which the steel of the mills were needed

Answer 31

1. he is not authorized to do so because it is part of the executive branch (Congress) and they (Constitutional Congress) did not authorize him to give this order 2. Truman could also not give the order under the aggregate of his constitutional powers as the Nation’s Chief Executive and the Commander-in-Chief because the US was not a national emergency as the (participation in the) Korean war did not pose an immediate threat. Thus it was not necessary to extend the president's constitutional powers.

Answer 32

1. The doctrine of separation of powers prevented the Supreme Court from hearing this case at all. They asserted that because the judicial and executive branches are separate, each with its own functions, the judicial branch should not be allowed to interfere with the functioning of the executive branch. 2. The Court should find the president was entitled to absolute executive privilege. This meant that he could not be forced to reveal any of his confidential communications unless he chose to. > the president needed honest advice from his advisors, and these advisors might be uncomfortable giving advice if they knew that it could become public. > these confidential communications were essential for the president to carry out the duties assigned to the executive branch by the Constitution.

Answer 33

1. The case raised a constitutional question, and therefore clearly fell within the functions of the judicial branch as the interpreter of the Constitution. To support this ruling, the justices cited the Court’s decision in Marbury v. Madison, in which the Court declared that it is the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. 2. The Court acknowledged the validity of these interests and that the president was entitled to a degree of executive privilege. This privilege was not determined to be absolute. In this case, the interest of President Nixon in keeping his communications secret conflicted with the interests of the judicial branch in providing a full and fair trial. A fair trial required full disclosure of all facts and relevant information. No need to protect the military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets.

Answer 34

2nd: - universal male suffrage, - Napoleon III - Franco Prussian war 3rd: - WWII deeply divided France - Charles de Gaule 4rd: - 24 governments in 12 years > France is a hot mess - struggle with colonies 5th: - president is a powerful figure - till present

Answer 35

Bicameralism is a type of legislature, one divided into two separate assemblies, chambers, or houses, known as a bicameral legislature. E.g. The French Parliament is the bicameral legislature of the French Republic, consisting of the Senate and the National Assembly. > The founders established the Senate and the National assembly as a bicameral legislature as a check against tyranny. They feared that in a unicameral legislature one governmental body would become too strong. This bicameral system distributes power within two houses that check and balance one another rather than concentrating authority in a single body.

Answer 36

France has a semi-presidential system: > executive power is vested in two institutions (dual executive) > it has a directly elected President who exercises many executive functions, and who is accountable to the people (which is the same in a presidential system but different from a parliamentary system in which the head of the executive is not directly elected but stays in office because they enjoy the confidence of parliament.) > it has a Prime Minister, who also holds executive power, and is accountable to parliament (in France the Prime minister is appointed by the president, with approval of assembly). > The president is popularly elected; > The president has considerable constitutional authority; > There exists also a prime minister and cabinet, subject to the confidence of the assembly majority.

Answer 37

The system used to create a possibility of competition between the president and the PM. The term for the president used to be seven years, that for the National Assembly five years. This could have the result that the president was from a different political colour than the parliamentary majority, meaning that the president had to appoint a PM from another political party (‘co-habitation’). Since 2000, the term for both the President and the National Assembly is five years and elections are being held in the same period, so the situation of co-habitation has become less likely. This way, the position of the president was strengthened.

Answer 38

> executive power is vested in two institutions: a president and parliament, each with an autonomous source of legitimacy which contributes to the ideal of the separation of powers > Dual executive can allow for a degree of power sharing between competing forces... > The system of the Fifth Republic has created political stability after the instability of the Fourth Republic, so apparently semi-presidentialism works in France > Direct election of a fixed-term president can provide the system with political stability and legitimacy, even if the parliament is highly fractionalized and governments are unstable

Answer 39

> Can confuse the public what is what > No clearly defined partner for foreign matters/uncertainty about who held executive power > The direct election of the president may encourage the personalization of the political process and it may encourage the president to disregard the rule of law because s/he feels above the normal political process > Potential for “cohabitation,” meaning the situation where the president is from one political force and the prime minister is from another. What proponents see as an advantage of semi-presidentialism, namely executive power-sharing, critics see as a distinct weakness when it manifests itself as a divided executive. > Even though semi-presidentialism has been adopted by a large number of (democratic) countries, there is a widespread academic consensus against semi-presidentialism.

Answer 40

1. president directly elected by the people 2. personal executive 3. government not accountable to parliament but to the people (+ fixed term for the president) 4. parliament cannot dismiss the government/president if it is dissatisfied with its performance

Answer 41

1. the head of the government is not directly elected but stays in office because they enjoy the confidence of parliament 2. however, the prime minister represents the majority party therefore, people are indirectly represented through parliamentary elections 3. collective executive (cabinet government) 4. government accountable to parliament > 5. parliament can dismiss the government

Answer 42

1. it is an ex ante decision, so decided by the CC before the law was promulgated, in order to test the constitutionality of the law and thus its legitimacy. 2. The President of the National Assembly and the President of the Senate have referred for review by the Constitutional Council the Act prohibiting the concealing of the face in public.

Answer 43

France changed from “constitution as politics” into “constitution as law.” État legal + État de droit > Étal legal = state rule through democratically enacted laws but requires legislators to be democratically elected; - consistent with revolutionary France’s profound mistrust of judges, the État légal leaves no room for constitutional adjudication; - constitutional objectives and constraints are political > 20th century: état legal was not adequate to meet the demands of constitutional democracy. - to remedy this deficiency the État de droit was invoked to supplement the État légal. - it was the État de droit's task to transform constitutional guarantees (that were only political) into legal guarantees. > similar approach as that of Germany in the Verfassungsstaat: in État de droit, politics remains the exclusive source of lawmaking, though this lawmaking is limited by the constitution as law. (= constrains powers)

Answer 44

After WWII Germany changed from the Rechstaat (state rule through law/positivist law/law separate from politics in which there was little room for constitutional challenges to legislation) into the Verfassungsstaat (Verfassungsstaat = state rule through constitution (after adoption of the Basic Law) After WWII (in Verfassungsstaat): - Constitutional court has an expansive role – positive legislator - Rechtstaat as a system failed because it did not take into account politics at all (and only referred to positivist law) and there was little room to challenge the laws in the constitution. - This way, Nazis were able to use the constitution as a tool to achieve their goals (constitutionalization of the political) - the new system (verfassungsstaat) puts more emphasis on the ideals of a constitution and democracy rather than what is literally said in laws/statutes. - However, giving more room to interpret constitutional issues can lead to numerous splits over constitutional norms and values which can lead to a politicization of the constitution.

Answer 45

Europe - Ex-ante (future-looking, assumptions & predictions) - Constitutional provisions (e.g., privacy) tend to be general and vague and less focus on precedent (than in USA) - German Basic Law and the French constitution empower their constitutional courts to determine constitutional questions - Originalism is virtually nonexistent. - Constitutions are not an almost sacred text and thus more room to challenge the constitution USA - Older and more entrenched. - A posteriori: based on reasoning from known facts or past events rather than by making assumptions or predictions. Need to case to bring the matter to the court. - More focus on precedent. - Constitution is actually silent, and the act is largely rooted in Marbury v Madison (challenges to the court’s authority) - Originalism (looking to the intent of the framers to resolve interpretive issues).

Answer 46

The supreme court's authoritativeness can be questioned because the court lacks a clear mandate from the constitution.

Answer 47

The 'countermajoritarian problem' involves the difficulties that come with the legitimacy (of the institution) of judicial review: when unelected judges use the power of judicial review to nullify the actions of elected executives or legislators, they act contrary to “majority will” as expressed by representative institutions. If one believes that democratic majoritarianism is a very great political value, then this feature of judicial review is problematic.

Answer 48

Another democratic value is the protection of individual rights. If a majority decision creates severe injustices for particular groups of people/individuals/minorities then it may be preferable to have a judge deem a certain application of the law as invalid even if it had been adopted by a majority of the elected representatives of the people.

Answer 49

1. in Germany constitutional amendments are easier made than in the US 2. the fact that the appointment process in the US is far more partisan 3. constitutional adjudication is fundamentally entrenched in the German Constitution, whereas it is only accepted on the basis of judge-made law in the US

Answer 50

It refers to how a judge interprets laws. Different judges interpret the laws of their state or the country in different ways.

Answer 51

1. Textualism: focuses on the plain meaning of the text of a legal document. 2. Original Meaning: whereas textualist approaches to constitutional interpretation focus solely on the text of the document, originalist approaches consider the meaning of the Constitution as understood by at least some segment of the population at the time, their original meaning. They try to restore the understanding of the ratifiers >>>Neither textualists or originalists refer to its purpose 3. Judicial Precedent – look to prior decisions on questions of law* 4. Moral Reasoning/Natural Law Theorist: This approach argues that certain moral concepts or ideals underlie some terms in the text of the Constitution 5. A pragmatist - would consider the consequences of various outcomes and aim to provide a solution that would lead to the least negative impact

Answer 52

1. To set up and maintain an effective state 2. To establish and respect democracy 3. To abide by the rule of law

Answer 53

Originalism: 1. focus on the original meaning to the authors or people at the time that the constitution was written 2. focus on the intention of the authors > people ratified a particular constitution (with particular meanings), therefore the original meaning is more important (than e.g. the contemporary meaning). Living document: 1. current meaning of what is stated in the constitution is different and more important than when it was created (its original meaning) > societal developments create new issues, which lead to changes in laws/morals/customs. It is therefore logical that the constitution develops simultaneously.

Answer 54

1. Judges shouldn’t make laws; their qualifications are not those of political philosophers (like the drafters of the constitution) 2. constitutional law does not evolve: amendments should come from the people, not the Supreme Court (when the constitution was drafted, people agreed to a particular constitution with a particular meaning, therefore its meaning cannot be changed by contemporary judges) 3. Certain matters should be insured against the risk of change, except through the majorities that constitutional amendment requires

Answer 55

1. It is illogical and undesirable to subject contemporary people to the views and philosophies of long-dead white males who had no understanding of the needs and values of the world today. 2. We need laws to remain relevant 3. The idea of a living document offers more hope to minority groups - in many instances without the court's use of a living instrument approach groups would be denied of any protection: homosexuals, prisoners, migrants... 4. Law must also now be applied in relation to things that did not exist when the constitution was drafted such as CCTV, IVF, the internet, various medical advances. However: Congress does have the power to pass any law that is required to meet the needs of changed times and circumstances.

Answer 56

Federalism is a type of government in which the power is divided between the national government and other governmental units. It contrasts with a unitary government, in which a central authority holds the power.

Answer 57

1. Reduce the concentration of power 2. The exit of colonial powers also left multi-ethnic states that required creative solutions to combine self-rule and shared rule. >> More specifically, federal arrangements can support minority nations in achieving (more) self-determination and the preservation of their culture, language, or religion. 4. Federalism gives states autonomy and this way freedom to try out different ideas and programs, which is why states are sometimes called "laboratories of democracy."

Answer 58

The margin of appreciation is a self-imposed mechanism of judicial restraint on the European Convention on Human Rights: > The term “margin of appreciation” refers to the room for interpretation that the Strasbourg organs are willing to give national authorities, in fulfilling their obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. > The margin may be "wide" or "narrow" - a wide margin results in more discretion given to a state, and a narrow margin results in less discretion. > Frequently invoked when it is hard to identify consistent European conceptions of the extent of rights or restrictions. A lack of consensus among Member States suggests to the ECtHR that the matter is best left to individual states.

Answer 59

This concept refers to the means of safeguarding the democratic system from political extremism/movements that try to undermine democratic values or democracy in its entirety.

Answer 60

Principle-based means interpreting the constitution with regard to certain principles that are enshrined within it (such as equality, freedom, etc.) and process-based means that a judge interprets the constitution with regards to safeguarding the democratic process

Answer 61

> Hatred towards communism > Anti-semitism (apart from Italy) > Hostility to freemasons, pacifists, similar international organizations > Leadership principle > Abolition of democracy and its institutions > References to a general house-cleaning > Nationalism > Its adherents are the depressed middle classes, some sections of the intelligentsia, youth

Answer 62

Nationally frustrated nations (e.g. economic pressure)

Answer 63

> Fascism simply wants to rule > Leadership, order, and discipline (fascism) are presented in contrast to parliamentary corruption, chaos, selfishness > General discontent is focussed on scapegoats (Jewish population, bankers, freemasons) > Propaganda is used in an unprecedented way > Different sections of the people are played off against one another > Emotionalism > Organising itself as a paramilitary corps, a party militia

Answer 64

1. fundamental principle of democracy is that different political views and ideas can be expressed. If people/parties who do not value democracy can be disbanded, they would take away certain fundamental rights (freedom of association) which is against democratic principles. 2. additionally, the representation of the people is an important democratic value, thus it can be seen as undemocratic if the opinion of the majority is disregarded because it is in conflict with democratic values.

Answer 65

> When two or more legal systems coexist in the same social field > When the law does not come from the state there may be negative externalities: • unconcerned with basic human rights • embrace overtly patriarchal ideals • significant bias toward powerful individuals and families • nonstate ““judicial” elites are neither independent nor impartial • the relationship between state and nonstate justice is often unclear

Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Remember Flashcards

Brainscape's Knowledge Genome^TM