Chapter 3 Benjamin Constant and the limits of popular sovereignty
dc.contributor.author | Timmermans, Nora | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-03-03T08:43:36Z | |
dc.date.available | 2021-03-03T08:43:36Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2021 | |
dc.identifier.isbn | 9780367483593 | en_US |
dc.identifier.isbn | 9780367712280 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/47019 | |
dc.description.abstract | "This book brings recent insights about sovereignty and citizen participation in the Belgian Constitution to scholars in the fields of public law, history, and political theory. Throughout the Western world, there are increasing calls for greater citizen participation. Referendums, citizen councils, and other forms of direct democracy are considered necessary antidotes to a growing hostility towards traditional party politics. This book focuses on the Belgian debate, where the introduction of participatory politics has stalled because of an ambiguity in the Constitution. Scholars and judges generally claim that the Belgian Constitution gives ultimate power to the Nation, which can only speak through representation in parliament. In light of this, direct democracy would be an unconstitutional power grab by the current generation of citizens. This book critically investigates this received interpretation of the Constitution and, by reaching back to the debates among Belgium's 1831 founding fathers, concludes that it is untenable. The spirit, if not the text, of the Belgian Constitution allows for more popular participation than present-day jurisprudence admits. Combining new insights from law, history, and political science, this book is a showcase for continental constitutional theory. The questions it asks reverberate far beyond Belgium. The book provides a rare source of information on Belgium's 1831 Constitution, which was in its time seen as modern constitutionalism’s greatest triumph which became a model for countless other constitutions. " | en_US |
dc.language | English | en_US |
dc.subject.classification | thema EDItEUR::L Law::LA Jurisprudence and general issues | en_US |
dc.subject.classification | thema EDItEUR::L Law::LN Laws of specific jurisdictions and specific areas of law::LND Constitutional and administrative law: general::LNDC Law: Human rights and civil liberties | en_US |
dc.subject.classification | thema EDItEUR::L Law::LN Laws of specific jurisdictions and specific areas of law::LND Constitutional and administrative law: general | en_US |
dc.subject.classification | thema EDItEUR::L Law::LA Jurisprudence and general issues::LAZ Legal history | en_US |
dc.subject.classification | thema EDItEUR::L Law::LN Laws of specific jurisdictions and specific areas of law | en_US |
dc.subject.classification | thema EDItEUR::Q Philosophy and Religion::QD Philosophy::QDT Topics in philosophy::QDTS Social and political philosophy | en_US |
dc.subject.classification | thema EDItEUR::J Society and Social Sciences::JP Politics and government::JPH Political structure and processes::JPHC Constitution: government and the state | en_US |
dc.subject.other | law | en_US |
dc.title | Chapter 3 Benjamin Constant and the limits of popular sovereignty | en_US |
dc.type | chapter | |
oapen.relation.isPublishedBy | 7b3c7b10-5b1e-40b3-860e-c6dd5197f0bb | en_US |
oapen.relation.isPartOfBook | bd21dbe8-1660-4d14-9d06-1cb7f7ccd46c | en_US |
oapen.relation.isFundedBy | 608fbdcb-bd0a-4d50-9a26-902224692f76 | en_US |
oapen.imprint | Routledge | en_US |
oapen.pages | 19 | en_US |
peerreview.anonymity | Single-anonymised | |
peerreview.id | bc80075c-96cc-4740-a9f3-a234bc2598f1 | |
peerreview.open.review | No | |
peerreview.publish.responsibility | Publisher | |
peerreview.review.stage | Pre-publication | |
peerreview.review.type | Proposal | |
peerreview.reviewer.type | Internal editor | |
peerreview.reviewer.type | External peer reviewer | |
peerreview.title | Proposal review | |
oapen.review.comments | Taylor & Francis open access titles are reviewed as a minimum at proposal stage by at least two external peer reviewers and an internal editor (additional reviews may be sought and additional content reviewed as required). |