TY - CHAP
T1 - The Ill-Fated Union
T2 - Constitutional Entrenchment of Rights and the Will Theory from Rousseau to Waldron
AU - Masferrer, Aniceto
AU - Taitslin, Anna
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2014, Springer International Publishing Switzerland.
PY - 2014
Y1 - 2014
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - French Revolution
KW - Judicial Review
KW - National Sovereignty
KW - Social Contract
KW - Supra Note
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85034655158
U2 - 10.1007/978-3-319-05585-5_8
DO - 10.1007/978-3-319-05585-5_8
M3 - Chapter
AN - SCOPUS:85034655158
T3 - Ius Gentium
SP - 105
EP - 128
BT - Ius Gentium
PB - Springer
ER -