Debates about emergency powers traditionally focus on whether law can or should constrain officials in emergencies. Emergencies in Public Law moves beyond this narrow lens, focusing instead on how law structures the response to emergencies and what kind of legal and political dynamics this relation gives rise to. Drawing on empirical studies from a variety of emergencies, institutional actors, and jurisdictional scales (terrorist threats, natural disasters, economic crises, and more), this book provides a framework for understanding emergencies as long-term processes rather than ad hoc events, and as opportunities for legal and institutional productivity rather than occasions for the suspension of law and the centralization of response powers. The analysis offered here will be of interest to academics and students of legal, political, and constitutional theory, as well as to public lawyers and social scientists.

This book makes a significant contribution to the understanding of issues of comparative constitutionalism in emergent politics. Recurrent states of emergency in Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh provide the background for a comparative examination of constitutional emergency powers, individual rights, and judicial review. This work examines the extent to which the Court in these countries has performed its expected role, identifies problems in approaches to interpretation which have been adopted, and suggests alternatives to constitutional interpretation and judicial review. The alternatives explored are drawn from contemporary western jurisprudence, including those of Ronald Dworkin and writers of the Critical Legal Studies tradition. The juxtaposition of western jurisprudential development to issues of constitutionalism in the countries under survey is a bold attempt to seek some common ground in conceptualizing rights and techniques of juristic interpretation in western and eastern legal cultures. The theoretical framework of the study is well-perceived, the arguments convincing. This carefully researched work makes a valuable and scholarly contribution to the study of comparative constitutional law and jurisprudence.

Dyzenhaus deals with the urgent question of how governments should respond to emergencies and terrorism by exploring the idea that there is an unwritten constitution of law, exemplified in the common law constitution of Commonwealth countries. He looks mainly to cases decided in the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada to demonstrate that even in the absence of an entrenched bill of rights, the law provides a moral resource that can inform a rule-of-law project capable of responding to situations which place legal and political order under great stress. Those cases are discussed against a backdrop of recent writing and judicial decisions in the United States of America in order to show that the issues are not confined to the Commonwealth. The author argues that the rule-of-law project is one in which judges play an important role, but which also requires the participation of the legislature and the executive.

In Terror in the Balance, Posner and Vermeule take on civil libertarians of both the left and the right, arguing that the government should be given wide latitude to adjust policy and liberties in the times of emergency. They emphasize the virtues of unilateral executive actions and argue for making extensive powers available to the executive as warranted. At a time when the 'struggle against violent extremism' dominates the United States' agenda, this important and controversial work will spark discussion in the classroom and intellectual press alike.

The fundamental premise of this study is that where Constitutions, such as that of India and Pakistan, articulate legal norms which limit the scope of the executive power to derogate from individual rights during states of emergency, there must likewise exist an effective control mechanism to ensure that the Executive acts within the scope of that power. Viewed from this perspective, the judicial power to interpret the Constitution imposes upon the Court the constitutional duty to provide adequate safeguards against the abuse of state power affecting individual rights. This power remains available notwithstanding the presumed or purported ouster of judicial review. The concept of judicial review as a source of control is examined in the light of the experience of Pakistan and India during periods of constitutional emergency. The divergent approaches of the Courts in these countries, in litigation concerning emergency powers and individual rights, are explained in terms of divergent views that these Courts have adopted with respect to the nature of judicial review.

Oxford Handbooks of Political Science are the essential guide to the state of political science today. With engaging contributions from 51 major international scholars, the Oxford Handbook of Political Theory provides the key point of reference for anyone working in political theory and beyond.

Classic Books Library presents this brand new edition of “The Federalist Papers”, a collection of separate essays and articles compiled in 1788 by Alexander Hamilton. Following the United States Declaration of Independence in 1776, the governing doctrines and policies of the States lacked cohesion. “The Federalist”, as it was previously known, was constructed by American statesman Alexander Hamilton, and was intended to catalyse the ratification of the United States Constitution. Hamilton recruited fellow statesmen James Madison Jr., and John Jay to write papers for the compendium, and the three are known as some of the Founding Fathers of the United States. Alexander Hamilton (c. 1755–1804) was an American lawyer, journalist and highly influential government official. He also served as a Senior Officer in the Army between 1799-1800 and founded the Federalist Party, the system that governed the nation’s finances. His contributions to the Constitution and leadership made a significant and lasting impact on the early development of the nation of the United States.