A pragmatic approach to international human rights law involves discussing its premises, principles like human dignity, liberty, equality, and solidarity, and structural principles such as democracy, pluralism, and the rule of law. The chapter also examines the conditions, matters, and actors involved in the discussion. It explores how these principles are applied in practice and the challenges faced in their implementation. The chapter emphasizes the importance of a pragmatic approach that considers the practical realities of applying human rights principles in different contexts. It also discusses the role of various actors, including states, international organizations, and civil society, in promoting and protecting human rights.

The rule of law is a normative political ideal. This chapter presents two approaches to understanding it. The first is the legal essentialist approach, which derives an account of the rule of law from an account of the essence of legality and legal systems. The second is the limited government approach, which derives an account from a normative theory proposing a role for law in opposing and negating the arbitrary power of persons over others. The chapter contends that the latter approach is more persuasive than the former. However, and despite recent refinements, the approach has a legacy of libertarian thinking and has not acknowledged what the author of this chapter refers to as a regulatory conception of the rule of law which has a prominent social dimension. The social dimension entails a duty founded upon the rule of law ideal to legally regulate private arbitrary powers whose exercise allows some to impose coercion as well as non-consensual exploitation on others. The regulatory conception and its social dimension help us understand the appropriate relationship between the rule of law and human rights, the welfare state, and democracy.

The chapter recharacterises the founding instrument of international organisations as constitutions. They function as a legal basis for the organisation, they contain provisions about the mission of the organisation, about the organs/bodies and their competences, and regulate the relationship between the organisation and those who are legally subjected to it. It traces two waves of theories which have espoused different conceptions of constitution: The first wave revolved around the “small c-constitution” in the more neutral sense. The second wave postulated constitutions “with a capital C” that enshrine the constitutionalist trinity: rule of law, human rights, and democracy. In the current constellation of a global shift of power and ideology, a third theory for constitutions of international organisations, more responsive to the global social question and to the demands of the global south, is emerging. This third theory deserves to be pulled out into the light and should be fleshed out further. It should, on the one hand, not fall back on the small-c constitution and, on the other hand, take on board new principles, notably social transnational solidarity and contestatory democracy. This intellectual contribution can provide a basis for responses to the current pushbacks against international organisations.

The separation of powers is not a theory of mechanical checks and balances or counterforce. Any sufficiently complex organization will have competing interests or sub-units; most do not have a separation of powers. This chapter identifies the conceptual and normative core of the separation of powers as a particular kind of institutionalization of the rule of law. It is an attempt to guarantee a separation of general rules from applications to particular persons by keeping them apart not only in time but also in personnel and institutional space. The chapter further argues that the idea of the separation of powers as articulated by Montesquieu joined that understanding of the rule of law to bodies and estates of the mixed constitution, relying in particular on independent and high-status nobles to defend the law against the political demands of the executive monarch equipped with coercive force. The democratization of the separation of powers in the American founding stripped away that social independence, and left the separation of powers weaker than has generally been noticed. The chapter concludes with considerations of the modern executive branch, and suggests that separation of powers reasoning might need to be applied internally to it.

Hobbes posed for modernity what we can think of as the puzzle – even the paradox – of sovereignty. The sovereign of a particular polity is the person or body who wields ultimate authority to make law. It follows, he claimed, that the sovereign is legally unlimited. But for Hobbes, any sovereign is legally constituted in that it must comply with what I call the ‘validity mark’ of sovereignty: Legal change must happen in accordance with the criteria of validity. In addition, there is the ‘fundamental legality mark’: To count as an act of sovereign will, a law must be consistent with the laws of nature, in more contemporary terms with the fundamental legal commitments of the legal order. Hobbes’s idea of sovereignty is thus a legal idea, which contrasts with the figure that haunts politics today, the ‘political idea of sovereignty’. I argue that in order to properly oppose the troubling figure of the political sovereign, one needs to have in place not only both marks of sovereignty, but also a political theory of their value. There is a politics to the legal idea of sovereignty.

Climate change, it is often said, is the greatest challenge of our time. As a global phenomenon with a long temporal reach, the impacts of climate change amplify challenges already faced across social, political, economic and ecological spheres. Similarly, constitutional theory is not immune from the impacts of climate change. Yet scholarly engagements between constitutional theory and climate change have thus far been targeted and disparate. This chapter represents an attempt to face up to the challenge of climate change from the perspective of constitutional theory. It takes seriously the discourse of “climate emergency” to argue that emergency is a theoretically defensible framing of the problem. Using the rule of law, rights and federalism as three examples of the challenges that climate change poses for constitutional theory, it highlights some strengths and limitations of existing literatures on these three concepts. Ultimately, it shows that the climate emergency points us to a theory of constitutionalism that builds on these strengths, responds to these limits and provides a path forward for thinking through the role of constitutional theory in a climate-disrupted world.

How much of a role can human dignity play in constitutional law? It can certainly serve as a foundation of some or all of the rights that a constitution comprises, and it may also figure in the specific content of some of these rights. It may do this explicitly or implicitly – implicitly (as in the US Constitution) when dignity’s role is brought out in legal argument rather than the explicit text. Most rights that protect freedom implicate dignity, but so also do social and economic rights in the constitutions that have them. More generally human dignity may serve as a constitutional value, guiding the interpretation of other provisions: it does this, for example, explicitly in the Constitution of South Africa. It may also underpin the constitutional protection of democracy and the franchise, the rule of law, structures of accountability, the importance of citizenship, and the overall orientation of the provisions of the constitution towards respect for the ordinary people of the country that it governs.

Despite being nearly universally recognised as a virtue, judicial independence has been challenged in almost all parts of the world. Some commentators even consider it to be so open to differing interpretations as to be a useless concept, that should be unpacked to its smaller components to be studied meaningfully. We are less cynical about the idea. According to our theory, judicial independence exists where powerful actors are unable or unwilling to inappropriately interfere with the workings of the judiciary. Judicial independence is thus a relational concept and always results from the interplay between the capacity and willingness of powerful actors to inappropriately interfere with the judiciary, and the capacity and willingness of judicial actors and their allies to withstand such actions. We distinguish three levels of judicial independence: de jure institutional independence, de facto institutional independence, and decisional independence. Courts are thus independent when powerful actors do not consistently impose their preferences in disputes they have a stake in, either by capturing the courts through formal changes of laws governing the judiciary, through rigging these laws in their favour, or by skewing judicial decision-making. By contrast, a dependent judiciary is the one that is captured, rigged, or skewed.

Constitution-making acts of persons and institutions are the primary objects of constitutional interpretation. The primary result of constitutional interpretation is an account of the meaning of those acts. This chapter offers an explanation of the prodigious creativity of constitutional courts that involves two elements. First, we all equivocate concerning the meaning of a constitution, treating it variously (or at the same time) as the signification of constitution-making acts, and/or as the significance of the constitution as a framework of governance. Secondly, creativity results from interpreters’ ways of resolving the tension between the rule of constitutional law (that is, adherence to a rule-governed framework of governance) and the demands of constitutional justice (that is, the array of principles of justice in governance that the constitution ought to secure). The boundaries of constitutional interpretation are put in question by the equivocation between meaning as significance and meaning as signification, and by the tension between the rule of constitutional law and the demands of constitutional justice.

This chapter highlights the centrality of the rule of law to Khatami’s presidential campaign. It then reviews the policies of the heads of the judiciary in the post-Khomeini era, with the most far-reaching reform initiatives occurring during the tenure of Shahroudi (1999–2009). These included trying to phase out special courts, prohibiting the security services from running their own detention and prison systems, ending the death penalty for minors, ending execution by stoning, strengthening the rights of political prisoners, and reforming the Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure. Many of these were reversed or watered down by Sadegh Larijani, head of the judiciary 2009–2019. Ebrahim Raisi (2019-2021) revived some of Shahroudi’s reforms in sentencing and also inaugurated a concerted effort to fight corruption in the judiciary. The chapter illustrates that the judiciary is not a monolith, and much of the quality of the rule of law stands and falls with its leading administrators and professionals.

The quality of rule of law has been anything but static in the Islamic Republic: It has varied from area to area of law and across time, with improvements in some years and regressions in others. Established accounts tend to either discount the dramatic erosion of the rule of law in light of the revolution’s other perceived or real achievements (e.g., in terms of education or the Human Development Index [HDI], for example), or paint an entirely bleak picture with gross human rights violations. Discussions seldom differentiate between different areas of law, or acknowledge fluctuations of the rule of law across time. This chapter reviews some of the key areas covered in the volume such as criminal justice, minority rights, property rights, family law, labor rights, freedom of artistic expression and others, mapping progressions and regressions of the rule of law in these spheres and concludes with reflections on prospects for rule-of-law reform.

The Islamic Republic of Iran prides itself on the extent to which it has codified Islamic law, and it bases its entire legal system, not only constitutional or family law, but ostensibly all realms of law, on legal codes in which Islamic notions of justice have been codified into positive law. The chapter first provides a brief survey of the various uses and connotations of the concept of rule of law. After offering an overview of the evolution of the modern legal system in Iran, it reviews the main elements of the 1979 constitution and its 1989 amendment. It then discusses three central concepts through which Islamic law as codified has been reformed and revised. The chapter then presents the main outlines of the legal and judicial system of Iran, before offering an overview of the chapters of the book. The chapter closes with reflections on the main challenges to the rule of law in Iran today.

This chapter examines the contours of theories and debates about the nature and function of the right to resist as a legal concept. Firstly, it identifies four main approaches to conceptualizing the nature of the right: as moral, legal, both, or other. It then considers three main conceptions of the concept’s relationship to the rule of law. Concerning its other key characteristics, the chapter considers possibilities including that it is: a fundamental ‘human right’ in the political rights cluster; an ‘unenumerated’, ‘implied’, or ‘latent’ right; an enforceable ‘claim’ right; a ‘right’ or ‘duty’ or hybrid ‘right-duty’; a primary or secondary right or both. Secondly, the chapter identifies possibilities for the legal function of the right, including as: a self-help remedy for enforcement or prevention; an exceptional immunity, justification, or temporary permission by license; a form of jus ad bellum; or a lawful exception and lex specialis rule. It concludes non-exclusively that the nature of the contemporary right to resist is a potentially enforceable human right, functioning as a lex specialis rule of exception.

Public administrations are increasingly deploying algorithmic systems to facilitate the application, execution, and enforcement of regulation, a practice that can be denoted as algorithmic regulation. While their reliance on digital technology is not new, both the scale at which they automate administrative acts and the importance of the decisions they delegate to algorithmic tools is on the rise. In this chapter, I contextualize this phenomenon and discuss the implementation of algorithmic regulation across several public sector domains. I then assess some of the ethical and legal conundrums that public administrations face when outsourcing their tasks to such systems and provide an overview of the legal framework that governs this practice, with a particular focus on the European Union. This framework encompasses not only constitutional and administrative law but also data protection law and AI-specific law. Finally, I offer some take-aways for public administrations to consider when seeking to deploy algorithmic regulation.