Abstract: In this study, we will aim to analyze how the period of the state of emergency in Turkey lead to gaps in law and the formation of areas in which there was a complete lack of supervision. The state of emergency that was proclaimed following the coup attempt of July 15, 2016, continued until July 18, 2018, that is to say, 2 years, without taking into account whether the initial circumstances persisted. As part of this work, we claim that the state of emergency provided the executive power with important tools for governing, which it took constant use. We can highlight how the concern for security at the center of the basic considerations of the people in a city was exploited as a foundation by the military power in Turkey to interfere in the political, legal and social spheres. The constitutions of 1924, 1961 and 1982 entrusted the army with the role of protector of the integrity of the state. This became an instrument at the hands of the military to legitimize their interventions in the name of public security. Its interventions in the political field are indeed politically motivated. The constitution, the legislative and regulatory systems are modified and monopolized by the military power that dominates the legislative, regulatory and judicial power, leading to a state of exception. With the political convulsions over a decade, the government was able to usurp the instrument called the state of exception. In particular, the decree-laws of the state of emergency, which the executive makes frequent and generally abusive use, became instruments in the hands of the government to take measures that it wishes to escape from the rules and the pre-established control mechanisms. Thus the struggle against the political opposition becomes more unbalanced and destructive. To this must also be added the ineffectiveness of ex-post controls and domestic remedies. This research allows us to stress how a legal concept such as "the state of emergency" can be politically exploited to make it a legal weapon that continues to produce victims.
Abstract: In a parliamentary system, party discipline is the impulse; when it falls short, the government usually falls. Conceivably, the platform of Indian politics suffers with innumerous practical disorders. The politics of defection is one such specie entailing gross miscarriage of fair conduct turning politics into a game of thrones (powers). This practice of political nomaditude can trace its seed in the womb of British House of Commons. Therein, if a legislator was found to cross the floor, the party considered him disloyal. In other words, the legislator lost his allegiance to his former party by joining another party. This very phenomenon, in practice has a two way traffic i.e. ruling party to the opposition party or vice versa. The democracies like USA, Australia and Canada were also aware of this fashion of swapping loyalties. There have been several instances of great politicians changing party allegiance, for example Winston Churchill, Ramsay McDonald, William Gladstone etc. Nevertheless, it is interesting to cite that irrespective of such practice of changing party allegiance, none of the democracies in the west ever desired or felt the need to legislatively ban defections. But, exceptionally India can be traced to have passed anti-defection laws. The politics of defection had been a unique popular phenomenon on the floor of Indian Parliamentary system gradually gulping the democratic essence and synchronization of the Federation. This study is both analytical and doctrinal, which tries to examine whether representative democracy has lost its essence due to political nomadism. The present study also analyzes the classical as well as contemporary pulse of floor crossing amidst dynastic politics in a representative democracy. It will briefly discuss the panorama of defections under the Indian federal structure in the light of the anti-defection law and an attempt has been made to add valuable suggestions to streamline remedy for the still prevalent political defections.
Abstract: The main purpose of this paper is to determine the impact of both International Humanitarian Law and anti-piracy International Law on Constitutional Law. International Law is endowed with a rich set of norms on the protection of private individuals in armed conflicts and copes with the diachronic crime of maritime piracy, which may be considered as a private war in the high seas. Constitutional Law has been traditionally geared at two generations of fundamental rights. The paper will aim at answering the question “Which is the profile of 3G constitutional rights, particularly in the light of International Humanitarian Law?”
Abstract: The objective of this paper is to analyze the role played by the institute of the public hearings in the Brazilian Supreme Court. The public hearings are regulated since 1999 by the Brazilian Laws nº 9.868, nº 9.882 and by the Intern Regiment of the Brazilian Supreme Court. According to this legislation, the public hearings are supposed to be called when a matter of circumstance of fact must be clarified, what can be done through the hearing of the testimonies of persons with expertise and authority in the theme related to the cause. This work aims to investigate what is the role played by the public hearings and by the experts in the Brazilian Supreme Court. The hypothesis of this research is that: (I) The public hearings in the Brazilian Supreme Court are used to uphold a rhetoric of a democratic legitimacy of the Court`s decisions; (II) The Legislative intentions have been distorted. To test this hypothesis, the adopted methodology involves an empirical study of the Brazilian jurisprudence. As a conclusion, it follows that the public hearings convened by the Brazilian Supreme Court do not correspond, in practice, to the role assigned to them by the Congress since they do not serve properly to epistemic interests. The public hearings not only do not legitimate democratically the decisions, but also, do not properly clarify technical issues.