The Venice Commission’s “new democracies”

About Edinburgh Law SchoolEstablished in 1707, and situated in the heart of Scotland’s capital, Edinburgh Law School has been at the heart of legal research and education for more than 300 years.Edinburgh Law School is Scotland’s leading legal research institution and has a reputation for research excellence in the United Kingdom, Europe and across the globe. Edinburgh Law School is committed to providing a creative, dynamic, diverse and inclusive research environment for researchers and students, and to producing world-leading research that contributes to scholarship and the wider community.We are a world-leading law school shaped over many centuries by our values and beliefs, commitment to excellence, and the passion and achievements of our staff, students, and alumni.Learn more about Edinburgh Law School at the University of EdinburghPrivacy statementLearn more about how we use your information and whom we share it with at:www.law.ed.ac.uk/about-us/privacy-cookies

Edinburgh Law School, University of Edinburgh

Seminar talk on: The Venice Commission’s “new democracies” and the mental map of European constitutionalism

Edinburgh Law School

The Venice Commission is known to differentiate its constitutional advice depending on whether a state is considered a ‘new’ or an ‘established’ democracy. This has become an increasingly frequent point of contention raised with particular glee by the supporters of PiS’ judicial reforms attempting to discredit the Commission’s criticisms as an example of ‘double standards’. To the extent that the differentiation has become a rhetorical boon for abusive constitutionalists in Central and Eastern Europe, it deserves our attention. This article traces the origin and extent of the distinction between new and established democracies in the Venice Commission’s work. Its origins lie in the Commission’s conception of ‘European constitutional heritage’, which confines the sources of that heritage to states with an established democratic tradition. The result is a mental map of European constitutionalism that draws sharp contrasts between ‘core’ states with and ‘peripheral’ states without such traditions, as well as contingent institutional development and rational institutional design, and runs the risk of leaving little space for further gradation and nuance. Furthermore, the extent to which a ‘lack of constitutional traditions’ can be remedied through law and institutions is questionable. Consequently, I will question whether the distinction deserves the centrality in the Venice Commission’s constitutional advice which it has so far enjoyed. Speaker <a href="https://www.gla.ac.uk/schools/law/staff/julianscholtes/" title="https://www.gla.ac.uk/schools/law/staff/julianscholtes/" target="_blank" data-msys-clicktrack="0" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer">Julian Scholtes (University of Glasgow)</a>

Our {communityGuidelinesLink} describe the sort of content we prohibit on Eventbrite. If you suspect an event may be in violation, you can report it to us so we can investigate.

To report other categories of prohibited or illegal content, submit {link}