Search

This article offers a new reading of Lord Durham's recommendations concerning municipal institutions, included in the last section of his famous report. By placing the document in the context of the debates raised by the constitutional and administrative reforms conducted in Britain during the 1830s, it shows that its author understood autonomous municipalities as essential components of a modern mixed government. Such language was then employed by reformist Whigs in order to justify the policies which they thought were necessary to strengthen the country's political institutions by adapting them to changing social circumstances. The analysis presented here challenges the interpretation provided by most contemporary commentators on the report. Many of them have concluded that Lord Durham's understanding of local institutions is based on a liberal conception of political life, found in the writings of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. These studies tend to reduce early British liberalism to philosophical radicalism. They seek to demonstrate that liberals wish to deprive local communities of their political autonomy by integrating their institutions into the juridical structure of a highly centralized State. By focusing on the rhetoric used by Lord Durham to write his report, this article allows us to appreciate the heterogeneity of the definition of the municipality developed by liberalism. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This paper examines judicial reasoning in the area of Aboriginal title, paying particular attention to the Supreme Court of Canada's Tsilhqot'in Nation (2014) decision. While the decision has been heralded as a ‘game-changer’ within media circles and legal commentaries for its recognition of a claim to title under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, the authors argue that the decision does not depart substantially from prior judicial logics predicated upon the production of Crown sovereignty and the denial of Indigenous legal orders. In fact, the authors argue that the decision displays a clear judicial orientation towards the present jurisdictional divisions of Canadian federalism which not only serves to eliminate Indigenous legal orders and territorial responsibilities, but also provides federal and provincial governments with enhanced powers of ‘incursion’ into Aboriginal title lands. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In the wake of wide-ranging municipal amalgamations Ontario, the provincial government promoted the use of community councils, citizen-led boards that would have input in local matters. Community councils were touted as a way of preserving local identity and policy control. However, more than a decade removed from Ontario's restructuring process, few municipalities have community councils in place. Those that have implemented community councils established them with purely advisory functions. This paper asks why community councils were so inconsistently implemented and introduced with such limited powers. Overall, it is found that community councils were victims of restructuring politics. Blocked by city councillors fearing decentralization would dilute their authority and foster political rivals, constrained through a restrictive legislative framework and pushed aside by city officials fearing they would effectively recreate a two-tier system, community councils were either abandoned or installed with a limited mandate. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Criminal deportation policy in Canada follows a cyclical rather than a linear or partisan pattern. Based on a case study of Haitian residents deported between 1989 and 2009, I argue that criminal deportation cannot be explained as a stable proportion of the pool of permanent residents, but rather in terms of the political attention it generates. A change-point analysis identified two separate political mobilization phases. During the first phase (1994-1998), the integration of long-term residents is defined as a political issue and is translated into legislation (Bill C-44). The second phase (2003-2005) is a new episode of expansion that reformulated the issue around the concepts of risk and efficiency (Bill C-11). Despite recent legal reforms designed to accelerate removals of foreign criminals (Bills C-43 and C-60), the arrival of the Conservative Party (2006-2009) coincided with a decrease in criminal deportations during the period under review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Western powers have created a wide range of military networks whose operating modes remain largely unknown to us. While the subfield of International Relations debates the ability of networks to generate convergence, this article addresses this debate with a longitudinal study of one such military network: the Multinational Interoperability Council (MIC). Our analysis reveals that, despite limited resources and influence, members of the MIC produce an identity, norms and capabilities for collective action that are specific to the network. They are able to mobilise them strategically in order to produce soft convergence in the area of military coalition building. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the intellectual roots of Canada's foreign policy as conceived and promoted by David Bercuson and Barry Cooper, two prominent members of the “Calgary School” and public intellectuals credited with influencing the Harper government's view of the world. While their notion of Canada's foreign policy can be simply boiled down to their belief that Canada should align with the foreign policy of the United States, it is, in fact, more complex. Bercuson and Cooper's vision of Canada's foreign policy blends in a distinct way their own understanding of Canadian history and the original intent behind Canadian Confederation; their particular conception of international relations; philosophical and anthropological reflections on violence; and their typically Western Canadian political consciousness. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Can citizens disobey the law, which comes from the will of the majority and the decision of the legitimately elected Parliament, merely because it seems to them unjust? Opposing conservative thought, which defends the established order and condemns any transgression, contemporary liberal thought has provided a defense of the democratic legitimacy of civil disobedience. However, the Rawlsian and Habermasian justifications of civil disobedience seem rather weak when compared to the political thought of disobedient activists themselves, namely Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Howard Zinn. This overlooked “disobedient thought” reveals the shortcomings and assumptions of the liberal concept of civil disobedience. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This paper explores the lessons drawn by German constitutional scholars from the breakdown of the Weimar Republic, and how this traumatic experience became a starting point at the end of the 1930s for a new conception of democracy both liberal and robust (or “defensive”). Emigré constitutional scholars devised three distinctive versions of this “democratic robustness”: an “anti-extremist” (which originated in Weimar legal antipositivism); a “militant democracy” (first exposed by Karl Loewenstein); and a “constitutional dictatorship” (Carl J. Friedrich, Frederick W. Watkins). At the heart of each one lies a decisive debate with Carl Schmitt, even if implicit or diffracted. By reconstructing these debates one can appreciate to what extent postwar constitutional democracies have incorporated Schmitt's ideas. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]