Political Philosophy and Theory

Does the World Need More Canada?

I've posted a new paper on SSRN, "Does the World Need More Canada?  The Politics of the Canadian Model in Constitutional Politics and Political Theory".  The paper is forthcoming in the International Journal of Constitutional Law in October.  Here is the abstract:

In the past two decades, numerous political theorists have taken up the question of how constitutional design should respond to the fact of minority nationalism. Just as important as that question is the way in which these theorists have responded to it. Some, rather than deriving constitutional strategies and models from abstract principles of political morality, have turned to real-life models to buttress their proposed solutions. It is precisely in this context that Canada has attained considerable prominence.

Michael Ignatieff, the Charter and the Quebec Nation Debate

On the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the  Charter, I offer some skeptical thoughts on the success of the Charter as an instrument of nation-building, in Bills of Rights as Instruments of Nation-Building in Multinational States: The Canadian Charter and Quebec Nationalism, posted on SSRN.  Here is the abstract (after the break):

Lies, Damned Lies and Campaign Promises

Today, as the home stretch of Ontario's election campaign begins, Conservative leader John Tory announced that he will allow a free vote after all on his controversial proposal to extend public funding to faith based schools. Many will seize on the turnaround as evidence of a "broken promise" (Tory has earlier indicated he would not put the proposal to a free vote if elected on October 10th). Perhaps this is an example of Tory having to get cozy in a bed of his making. Much of Tory's campaign has emphasized Premier McGuinty's broken promises, including most notably his "no new taxes" pledge of the 2003 campaign and the Liberal's subsequent decision to impose a new tax (the "health premium").

This all raises the question –What is the nature of integrity, ethics and accountability in political campaigning?

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation, which had encouraged the “no new taxes” pledge in 2003, took Premier McGuinty to court after the health premium was passed in 2004, arguing that he had breached a contract. The Ontario Court of Appeal rejected this legal ploy, affirming the obvious, which is that politicians who make campaign promises have not created a legal obligation to do the thing they promised.

Why has Canada Changed its Tune on Citizens Facing the Death Penalty?

This commentary was first published in The Lawyers Weekly on November 16, 2007, page 17

Ronald Smith of Red Deer, Alberta is slated to die the same way that Stanley Faulder of Jasper, Alberta did in 1999: by lethal injection. It can be a cruel death, leaving people gasping for air and writhing in pain while jailhouse “doctors” try to hit a vein with the poisoned needle. Observers at the 1994 execution of killer John Wayne Gacey in Illinois told reporters that the person who inserted the tube in his arm appeared to have “never taken I.V. 101”.

The two Canadians also share another trait: brutality. Faulder murdered a 75 year old Texas woman by crushing her skull with a blackjack and then stabbing her with a kitchen knife, while Smith killed two young Native Americans in Montana by shooting them with a sawed-off shotgun at point blank range in the back of the head. Two cold Canadians whose confessions left little doubt as to the identity of the killers and horror of the crimes.

And yet with all the similarities, Canada has responded in starkly different ways. In Faulder’s case, the government turned interventionist, petitioning the U.S. courts and requesting clemency from the governor of Texas. By contrast, in Smith’s case, the government has turned isolationist, refusing to intervene in a judicial system that shares the same rule of law approach as Canada.

Veils, Isotopes and the Meaning of “Independence”

There have been a considerable number of allegations of late that the Federal Government has been improperly interfering with independent Federal Agencies, Board and Commissions (or, for short, Federal ABCs). From a dispute about veiled women voting to a dispute about shutting down a nuclear facility, both the diversity and the importance of independent administrative ABCs has been on display. But just how independent are they? When we refer to a body as at “arm’s length” from the Government, does that imply it still may be within the Government’s grasp. Below I suggest these administrative bodies may not be as independent as we think they are, but that their vulnerability to government interference is precisely what is intensifying public scrutiny of government and enhancing public support for administrative justice.

In September, Prime Minister Harper said he “profoundly disagreed” with the decision of  Elections Canada not to require veiled women to submit to visual identification before being able to vote in federal elections. Harper added:

Reasoning in Islamic and Jewish Legal History

My colleague Professor Robert Gibbs (philosophy; dir. Jackman Humanities Institute) and I recently were awarded a grant to begin a 3 year project exploring reasoning in Islamic and Jewish law, and the implications of our findings for a philosophy of law more generally. I'd like to share our general proposal and methodological approach, and invite comments.

Our questions revolve around the general concern of the roles of reason and authority in interpreting and determining law in religious traditions. While the question of authority and reason arises in every legal culture, we propose to focus on these two traditions because of their explicit and extensive reflection on questions of reason, and in specific we will gain a sharper and in some ways more complex purchase on the questions by considering how jurists interwove resources that were intrinsically human, and so would be qualified as rational in their time, with both political and religious authority.

Rule Of Law Reform And Development

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Prof. Michael Trebilcock and former dean Ron Daniels co-authored book "Rule Of Law Reform And Development: Charting the Fragile Path of Progress" has recently been published.
  Image001_3
"This important book addresses a number of key issues regarding the relationship between the rule of law and development. It presents a deep and insightful inquiry into the current orthodoxy that the rule of law is the panacea for the world’s problems. The authors chart the precarious progress of law reforms both in overall terms and in specific policy areas such as the judiciary, the police, tax administration and access to justice, among others. They accept that the rule of law is necessarily tied to the success of development, although they propose a set of procedural values to enlighten this institutional approach. The authors also recognize that states face difficulties in implementing this institutional structures and identify the probable impediments, before proposing a rethink of law reform strategies and offering some conclusions about the role of the international community in the rule of law reform.

Pages