Volume 4, Issues 1 & 2 (2019)
Comprehensive multidisciplinary peer-reviewed research papers exploring contemporary intersections of public law, comparative political science, administrative governance, European legal harmonization, and state modernization.
Volume 4, Issue 1 (2019)
Published: March 2019 | ISSN: 2367-4601Constitutional Resilience and Judicial Independence in Post-Crisis European Democracies
Dr. Elena Rostova (& Department of Public Law, University of Strasbourg, France); Prof. Henrik Varga (Institute for Legal Studies, Central European Academy, Hungary)
Abstract
The resilience of constitutional democracies across contemporary Europe has faced unprecedented structural pressures arising from populist political shifts, legislative executive aggrandizement, and contested judicial reforms. This paper examines the systemic mechanisms through which European constitutional courts and supranational tribunals—specifically the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)—defend institutional checks and balances. By conducting a comparative empirical and normative analysis of judicial governance across four distinct member states between 2015 and 2019, we evaluate how doctrinal safeguards such as the irremovability of judges, procedural autonomy, and the principle of effective judicial protection operate under political stress. Our findings indicate that formal constitutional amendment procedures alone are insufficient to deter executive encroachment without robust institutional culture and civic oversight. Furthermore, the study proposes an enhanced theoretical framework combining neo-institutionalist governance models with transnational legal pluralism to better understand how constitutional courts maintain institutional integrity during democratic transitions and populist consolidation.
Digital Bureaucracy and Algorithmic Governance in Municipal Public Administration
Dr. Marcus Lindqvist (& School of Public Administration, University of Gothenburg, Sweden); Sofia Al-Mansoor (Department of Political Science, Lund University, Sweden)
Abstract
The rapid integration of automated decision-making systems, artificial intelligence algorithms, and big data analytics into municipal governance has fundamentally transformed the traditional Weberian administrative architecture. This paper investigates the empirical realities of digital bureaucracy across twenty medium-sized municipalities, analyzing how algorithmic sorting influences citizen access to public welfare services, social housing allocations, and zoning permits. While proponents argue that automated administration enhances operational efficiency, reduces human bias, and lowers transaction costs, our critical administrative study reveals significant systemic challenges. These include opacity in machine-learning models, compromised administrative discretion, the exacerbation of digital divides among vulnerable populations, and difficulties in ensuring procedural due process and right-to-explanation standards under administrative law. We propose a regulatory framework for algorithmic accountability that mandates algorithmic impact assessments, public registries of automated decision tools, and robust human-in-the-loop oversight mechanisms to preserve democratic accountability in public administration.
Populist Parties in Coalition Governments: Legislative Output and Executive Dominance
Prof. Chiara Moretti (& Department of Political and Social Sciences, University of Bologna, Italy); Dr. Thomas Dubois (Centre for Political Research, Sciences Po, Paris, France)
Abstract
The inclusion of populist political parties in parliamentary coalition governments has become a defining phenomenon of contemporary Western democracies. This study analyzes the legislative behavior, policy output, and internal cabinet dynamics of coalition governments featuring radical right or radical left populist partners across parliamentary systems in Western and Southern Europe over the past decade. Utilizing a dataset of 450 legislative proposals and cabinet decrees, we evaluate how populist parties navigate the constraints of coalition power sharing. Our empirical models demonstrate that while populist parties frequently campaign on anti-establishment rhetoric and uncompromising ideological purity, their practical participation in government often leads to strategic pragmatism in fiscal policy balanced by aggressive legislative overreach in identity politics, immigration governance, and media regulation. Furthermore, the paper highlights how populist coalition partners systematically attempt to bypass parliamentary scrutiny by utilizing accelerated legislative procedures and emergency decrees, thereby altering traditional patterns of executive-legislative relations and testing the constitutional resilience of parliamentary oversight mechanisms.
Climate Change Litigation against State Actors: Supranational Jurisprudence and Public Accountability
Dr. Aanya Sharma (& Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore); Prof. Lucas Van de Berg (Department of International Environmental Law, Utrecht University, Netherlands)
Abstract
Climate change litigation has evolved from a marginal strategy into a powerful legal instrument holding sovereign states accountable for inadequate greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. This article explores the doctrinal expansion of constitutional and human rights-based climate litigation across national jurisdictions and international tribunals. Examining landmark judicial decisions from the Netherlands, Colombia, Pakistan, and the European Court of Human Rights, we analyze how courts are increasingly willing to interpret fundamental rights to life, private family life, and a healthy environment as imposing affirmative obligations on governments to implement robust climate mitigation policies. The study addresses the theoretical and practical hurdles inherent in these lawsuits, including issues of standing, causality, the separation of powers doctrine, and the justiciability of political questions regarding environmental policy. Our findings suggest that rights-based climate litigation serves as a vital catalyst for administrative policy change, compelling executive branches to accelerate decarbonization pathways and adhere to international climate commitments regardless of legislative gridlock.
Supranational Enforcement and National Sovereignty: The Evolution of EU Rule of Law Mechanisms
Dr. Mateusz Kowalski (& Institute of European Law, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland); Dr. Katharina Bauer (Department of Political Science, University of Vienna, Austria)
Abstract
The European Union's constitutional architecture has faced acute crises concerning the preservation of core rule of law standards among member states. This article evaluates the legal efficacy and political friction surrounding supranational enforcement mechanisms, including Article 7 TEU procedures, infringement proceedings under Article 258 TFEU, and the conditionality of EU budgetary funds linked to judicial independence. By analyzing legal texts, political negotiations, and judgments rendered by the Court of Justice between 2017 and 2019, we explore the delicate tension between the principle of sincere cooperation and national constitutional identity claims. The research demonstrates that while traditional infringement procedures are often too slow to address systemic backsliding, innovative judicial doctrines formulated by the CJEU—such as the broadened interpretation of effective judicial protection—have created powerful new tools for safeguarding democratic standards across the Union. However, persistent political polarization within the European Council highlights the ongoing limits of supranational coercion in deeply divided political landscapes.
Decentralization and Local Fiscal Autonomy: A Comparative Analysis of Subnational Governance
Dr. Amara Diallo (& Department of Public Administration, University of Dakar, Senegal); Prof. Jean-Luc Mercier (School of Government, Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium)
Abstract
Fiscal decentralization remains a cornerstone of administrative reform initiatives designed to enhance public service delivery, responsiveness, and democratic participation at the subnational level. However, the theoretical promise of fiscal federalism frequently encounters severe implementation barriers in practice. This comparative study examines the structural mechanics of local fiscal autonomy across unitary and federal states in West Africa and Western Europe. Utilizing quantitative budget data and qualitative administrative interviews from twelve regional governments, we analyze the degree to which local authorities control revenue mobilization, expenditure allocation, and intergovernmental fiscal transfers. Our findings indicate that asymmetric decentralization—where functional responsibilities are transferred to local municipalities without corresponding tax-raising powers—generates chronic fiscal deficits and deepens regional inequalities. The paper concludes by proposing a reformed framework for intergovernmental fiscal relations that emphasizes predictable revenue-sharing formulas, enhanced auditing capacity, and transparent participatory budgeting to ensure sustainable local governance.
Data Privacy, Surveillance Capitalism, and Fundamental Rights in the Digital Age
Dr. Sarah Jenkins (& Centre for Information Technology and Law, University of Oxford, UK); Prof. Nikos Thorne (Department of Law and Technology, University of Athens, Greece)
Abstract
The proliferation of data-driven business models and pervasive digital surveillance by both corporate entities and state intelligence agencies has posed profound challenges to the protection of fundamental privacy rights. This article examines the intersection of surveillance capitalism and modern information privacy law, focusing specifically on the implementation and enforcement of the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Through a doctrinal and socio-legal critique, we evaluate whether consent-based regulatory frameworks remain adequate in safeguarding individual autonomy against sophisticated algorithmic profiling, behavioral micro-targeting, and state mass surveillance initiatives. Our analysis reveals significant enforcement gaps among national data protection authorities, corporate compliance loopholes, and structural tensions between commercial data harvesting imperatives and fundamental constitutional guarantees of human dignity. The paper concludes by advocating for a paradigm shift from traditional notice-and-consent models toward substantive data fiduciary duties and stricter prohibitions on invasive biometric surveillance in public spaces.
No matching articles found
Try adjusting your search query or switch between Issue 1 and Issue 2.