Ten years ago this month, the International Society of Public Law (ICON•S) held its inaugural conference in Florence on June 26-28, 2014. Here is the archived conference program.
***

Today, the community of public law is more inclusive, more diverse, more affirming, more interesting, and more excellent than ever before. And it is thanks to ICON•S and its engaged members, particularly the leaders of the founding Pro Term Executive Committee: Sabino Cassese, Sujit Choudhry, Gráinne De Búrca, Ran Hirschl, Bing Bing Jia, Susanna Mancini, Phoebe Okowa, Michel Rosenfeld, Ruth Rubio Marin, Hélène Ruiz Fabri, Anne van Aaken, and Joseph Weiler.

***
ICON•S will hold its 10th anniversary conference in Madrid next month on July 8-10 at IE University. We expect over 2000 conference participants from dozens of countries around the world. Participants will sit on hundreds of panels, roundtables, and other scholarly programs that have torn down disciplinary, geographical, ideological, methodological, and other borders that once created silos within public law. And what is more, early-career scholars will speak alongside senior scholars, exchanging ideas in a robust and respectful fashion, with little regard for academic titles. This is only a small sampling of the many public goods ICON•S brought to the field ten years ago. And all of this is only a tiny part of what makes ICON•S such a special community.

***
If you plan to attend the ICON•S Annual Conference next month, I look forward to seeing you. I will make welcoming remarks at the Opening Ceremony on behalf of my fellow Co-President Marta Cartabia. It will be a happy occasion to welcome the world of public law to this special 10th anniversary conference.

Is judicial activism the same across borders or does it take different forms and seek different outcomes? In their new collection on Judicial Activism in Comparative Perspective, the two editors Lori Hausegger and Raul Sanchez-Urribarri bring together scholars from Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Paraguay, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Venezuela to examine how judicial activism differs in each jurisdiction, and why these differences matter to our understanding of the separation of powers, the rule of law, and constitutional democracy.

In his new paper, Satoshi Yokodaido of Keio University examines whether a constitutional amendment can be unconstitutional in Japan. His answer is fascinating: scholars in Japan have commonly argued that an amendment can be politically problematic but not legally invalid. Constitutional Amendments Contrary to Constitutionalism: The Political Nature of Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendment in Japan breaks new ground by urging scholars to clarify the legal bases upon which a constitutional amendment may be declared unconstitutional under Japanese constitutional law.

Join us for the 2025 Global Summit on Constitutionalism here at the University of Texas at Austin on March 20-22, 2025. The Global Summit is an international conference showcasing all areas of constitutionalism. There is no cost to register. Group meals are provided. The first edition was held in 2021. The second in 2023. The 2025 Global Summit will be the third edition. All are welcome! Details and registration here.

Is a referendum an exercise in direct or representative democracy? The conventional view argues the former. But in her new book Referendums as Representative Democracy, just published by Hart, Leah Trueblood makes a compelling case that we should understand referendum voting as an exercise in representative democracy. Trueblood moreover suggest that reorienting our understanding of referendums in this way has profound implications for democracy and legitimacy.

Registration is now open for the 3rd Graduate Conference on Constitutional Change, to be held at the University of Texas at Austin on December 9-11, 2024. Graduate students of all levels are welcome. More details here. Applicants will be notified on a rolling basis.

 

I found myself often nodding in agreement as I read this new book by Anthony Michael Kreis. In Rot and Revival: The History of Constitutional Law in American Political Development, Kreis writes that “the Constitution is a vessel that holds a meaning that is only as virtuous as the enfranchised public is good.” Kreis explains that American constitutional law is not committed to achieving the most morally just outcomes. Instead, American constitutional law is the product of the ideological commitments of dominant political regimes and intervening social movements. 

Would it be lawful to use Article V to repeal the First Amendment and in turn to establish an official religion in the United States? John Rawls argues “no” in his classic book Political Liberalism: such a constitutional amendment would be invalid, according to him. In my new draft paper, I explain why I believe Rawls is wrong. Drawing from case law, political practice and the design of Article V, I show that his hypothetical 28th amendment to the U.S. Constitution would be valid, for better or worse.

Hans Kelsen, one of the most influential constitutional scholars of the 20th century, is the subject of an important book by Gonzalo Ramírez. In his edited collection – Kelsen en el mundo: La influencia de la teoría pura del derecho en distintos lugares – Ramírez enlists a team of scholars to evaluate the influence of Kelsen's magisterial book Pure Theory of Law in various regions of the world: America, Asia, Europe and Oceania. The result is a global survey of Kelsen's reach well beyond his native Prague.

Last week I traveled to Montego Bay to participate in the closing plenary panel at the 10th Biennial Jamaica Diaspora Conference, hosted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade. The plenary panel – on Forging a Future Together: Jamaica’s Constitutional Reform – featured the Minister of Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Hon. Marlene Malahoo Forte; youth representative on the Constitutional Reform Committee, Sujae Boswell; and me in my capacity as a Member of the Constitutional Reform Committee. The panel was moderated by Marlon Hill. 

***
Here I am with my fellow panelists right before the start of our discussion, and separately with Minister Malahoo Forte, chair of the Constitutional Reform Committee, just after our panel.