Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

The Ill-Fated Union: Constitutional Entrenchment of Rights and the Will Theory from Rousseau to Waldron

  • Aniceto Masferrer
  • , Anna Taitslin

Research output: A Conference proceeding or a Chapter in BookChapterpeer-review

Abstract

This chapter revisits the key theses of Georg’s Jellinek’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizens: A Contribution to Modern Constitutional History [1895]. The objective of this chapter is to expose the ‘umbilical cord’ that linked the notion of ‘constitutional’ rights and the will theory, on one side, and the internal incompatibility of notion of ‘inalienable rights’ with the will theory – reflecting an unabated conflict of the doctrines of parliamentary supremacy and constitutional rights, on another side. These doctrines are part of both ‘continental’ and ‘common law’ traditions. Our intent is also to reflect on the shared groundwork of the doctrine of sovereignty of Hobbes, Austin (and Dicey), on one side, and Rousseau, on another side. Our more particular thesis is that ‘neo-Benthamite’ positivists, as Waldron, assailing adjudication as being ‘undemocratic’, seem to return to the Rousseauan position, with all its flaws.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationIus Gentium
PublisherSpringer
Pages105-128
Number of pages24
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Publication series

NameIus Gentium
Volume38
ISSN (Electronic)2214-9902

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The Ill-Fated Union: Constitutional Entrenchment of Rights and the Will Theory from Rousseau to Waldron'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this