This book is a response to the dangers posed to constitutional democracy by the continuous growth of executive power and the simultaneous decline of parliaments’ role in policy formation. These phenomena are often manifested in the manipulation and even the violation of the rules of parliamentary law-making, called irregularities. If left without consequences, these irregularities can ultimately lead to the elimination of the procedural constraints imposed on the ruling political forces to prevent their arbitrary exercise of power. This work investigates the constitutional significance of the irregularities of parliamentary law-making and explores the role that courts play in the remedy of these flaws. The analysis is premised on the concept of equilibrium. This explanatory concept denotes an ideal state in which parliamentary law-making complies with the requirements of constitutionalism, and judicial review is conceptualized as a mechanism suitable to achieve this aim. The volume places the judicial review of the regulation and the practice of parliamentary law-making at its center and discusses all the relevant legal concepts, institutions, and doctrines. It combines theoretical analysis with case law-centered comparative research covering a large number of decisions delivered by apex courts operating in various jurisdictions. Due to this methodological choice, the book aims to simultaneously contribute to the scholarly discourse and provide useful information to practicing lawyers and policymakers working in the areas of constitutional law and politics and comparative law.

Legislatures are arguably the most important political institution in modern democracies. The Oxford Handbook of Legislative Studies, written by some of the most distinguished legislative scholars in political science, provides a comprehensive and up-to-date description and critical assessment of the state of the art in this key area.

Assesses what we know - and do not know - about comparative constitutional design and particular institutional choices concerning executive power and other issues.

This book explains how parties and their members of parliament structure parliamentary debate, providing novel insights into intra-party politics and representation.

The Handbook provides a broad introduction to Swedish politics, and how Sweden's political system and policies have evolved over the past few decades.

Setting the agenda for parliament is the most significant institutional weapon for governments to shape policy outcomes, because governments with significant agenda setting powers, like France or the UK, are able to produce the outcomes they prefer, while governments that lack agenda setting powers, such as the Netherlands and Italy in the beginning of the period examined, see their projects significantly altered by their Parliaments. With a strong comparative framework, this coherent volume examines fourteen countries and provides a detailed investigation into the mechanisms by which governments in different countries determine the agendas of their corresponding parliaments. It explores the three different ways that governments can shape legislative outcomes: institutional, partisan and positional, to make an important contribution to legislative politics. It will be of interest to students and scholars of comparative politics, legislative studies/parliamentary research, governments/coalition politics, political economy, and policy studies.

Analysing the conditions under which governments are more likely to present an executive law or a government bill, this book addresses a central aspect of the decision-making process of public policies. Drafting legislation is an important action to achieve specific policy goals, and the path chosen for this process is part of governmental strategy. This book presents a new theoretical explanation of how executives wield legislative power, based in a formal model. The model is tested using new data from Portugal. It shows that in political systems where one of the political actors has veto powers which can easily be overridden, the type of parliamentary majority is the main consideration for the government's choice of legislative instrument. More specifically, when a government does not have the majority in parliament it is more likely to propose an executive law, and contrary, when a government has a majority in parliament, it is more likely to propose a government bill.