My Recent Work on the Iraqi Judiciary and Constitution
Those of you who follow the blog are probably aware that I have a book coming out on the Iraqi Constitution, as it was drafted, and (even more) as it has evolved, largely for the better, in light of the tumltuous political conditions prevailing in Iraq during the first five years of its existence.
I've been rather reticent to discuss it very much as I continue to work through my own initial draft, but for the first time, I've been willing to present in symposia publicly some of the ideas and themes that will be important throughout the broader work. The following (short) pieces arose out of such symposia and are (brief and simplified) introductions to some of these themes. The first describes the progressive marginalization of the famed Article 2 requirement that law may not be enacted that contradicts the "settled rulings" of Islam. The second focusses more on the Iraqi judiciary, the manner in which it has reached its constitutional decisions, and what might be learned about constitutional praxis in Iraq from the recent experience of the judiciary. My conclusions tend to be that this experience is a largely positive one. Moreover, to the extent that the judiciary is "politicized", or understood not to be "following the constitution" but rather what powerful public forces demand, and negotiating among them to be relevant while still broadly acting in accordance with their desires when they converge, this is hardly a criticism. In fact this is part and parcel of the judicial process. To demonstrate that, I draw on some recent work on the history of the American Supreme Court, specifically Friedman's The Will of the People, to point out some interesting similarities in approach, while acknowledging some obvious differences. Again, to emphasize, these are symposia pieces, they do not intend to, nor are they designed to, develop the ideas fully, only to introduce them and begin the dialogue.
Links are below. The abstracts are up, the papers should be relatively soon, in a matter of days if not earlier. It's up to the SSRN editors, not me at this point.
HAH
I've been rather reticent to discuss it very much as I continue to work through my own initial draft, but for the first time, I've been willing to present in symposia publicly some of the ideas and themes that will be important throughout the broader work. The following (short) pieces arose out of such symposia and are (brief and simplified) introductions to some of these themes. The first describes the progressive marginalization of the famed Article 2 requirement that law may not be enacted that contradicts the "settled rulings" of Islam. The second focusses more on the Iraqi judiciary, the manner in which it has reached its constitutional decisions, and what might be learned about constitutional praxis in Iraq from the recent experience of the judiciary. My conclusions tend to be that this experience is a largely positive one. Moreover, to the extent that the judiciary is "politicized", or understood not to be "following the constitution" but rather what powerful public forces demand, and negotiating among them to be relevant while still broadly acting in accordance with their desires when they converge, this is hardly a criticism. In fact this is part and parcel of the judicial process. To demonstrate that, I draw on some recent work on the history of the American Supreme Court, specifically Friedman's The Will of the People, to point out some interesting similarities in approach, while acknowledging some obvious differences. Again, to emphasize, these are symposia pieces, they do not intend to, nor are they designed to, develop the ideas fully, only to introduce them and begin the dialogue.
Links are below. The abstracts are up, the papers should be relatively soon, in a matter of days if not earlier. It's up to the SSRN editors, not me at this point.
HAH
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1698447
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1698950
Comments