The federal system of the United States (US) has long served as a comparative model to the study of the European multilevel system for the protection of fundamental rights. Fundamental rights in Europe are simultaneously protected in the constitutions of the states, in the law of the European Union (EU), as well as in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Moreover, each of these overlapping layers of human rights norms is policed by institutions – particularly courts – which are interconnected but independent. This state of affairs presents analogies with the situation in the US. In the American system, rights are codified in state constitutions as well as in the federal Bill of Rights. Moreover, two connected but separate orders of jurisdictions – state and federal courts – are empowered to enforce the rights enshrined in their respective basic documents. Both the European multilevel human rights architecture and the US federal system, therefore, are structurally characterized by the existence of a plurality of sources and institutions for the protection of fundamental rights, as well as by a plurality of conceptions of what rights ought to be. Despite these similarities, however, the European and American human rights systems are the result of different constitutional experiences and have evolved over a diverse historical time-span. So, what is the added value of comparing the European multilevel human rights architecture with the US federal rights’ regime? Why is it helpful to compare and contrast these two cases? The benefits of a comparative approach in the field
Federico Fabbrini and Vicki C. Jackson
David Cole and Federico Fabbrini
Edited by Federico Fabbrini and Vicki C. Jackson
This edited collection explores the topic of constitutionalism across borders in the struggle against terrorism, analyzing how constitutional rules and principles relevant in the field of counter-terrorism move across borders. What emerges is a picture of the complex interplay of constitutional law, international law, criminal law and the law of war, creating webs of norms and regulations that apply in the struggle against terrorism conducted across increasingly porous borders.
Edited by David Cole, Federico Fabbrini and Arianna Vedaschi
Virtually every nation has had to confront tensions between the rule-of-law demands for transparency and accountability and the need for confidentiality with respect to terrorism and national security. This book provides a global and comparative overview of the implications of governmental secrecy in a variety of contexts. Expert contributors from around the world discuss the dilemmas posed by the necessity for – and evils of – secrecy, and assess constitutional mechanisms for checking the abuse of secrecy by national and international institutions in the field of counter-terrorism.