Other affiliations: University of Edinburgh
Bio: Emilios Christodoulidis is an academic researcher from University of Glasgow. The author has contributed to research in topic(s): Politics & Philosophy of law. The author has an hindex of 13, co-authored 80 publication(s) receiving 770 citation(s). Previous affiliations of Emilios Christodoulidis include University of Edinburgh.
Papers published on a yearly basis
01 Jan 2006-Modern Law Review
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors propose a method to solve the problem of homonymity of homophily in the context of homomorphic data, and no abstracts are available.
Abstract: No abstract available.
01 Dec 2014-Social & Legal Studies
TL;DR: The connection between constitutional law and private law was already anticipated by the very earliest sociotheoretical reflections on constitutional law as mentioned in this paper, for instance, in the writings of theorists as diverse as Savigny and Marx.
Abstract: Conventionally, normative and analytical philosophical approaches (i.e., those of Rawls, Dworkin, Alexy, etc) occupied an unshakably dominant position in constitutional theory. Theories of constitutional rule typically isolated the aspect of constitutionalism concerned with fundamental rights from other constitutional functions, and they usually revolved around the attempt to explain constitutions as documents expressing rationally defensible norms to govern the distinctively public exchanges of society. This dominance of analytical theory in constitutional inquiry was flanked and reinforced by the fact that ‘sociolegal’ analysis – with its own particular methodologies and emphases – had retreated from, or in fact had never really taken occupancy of, the sphere of constitutional debate, and it tended to concern itself with questions located in the sphere of private law, in regulation, or in criminology; the primary overlap of sociolegal analysis with a particular subdiscipline of law is clearly still now with criminology. In the rare cases in which more conventional sociological reflection placed a focus on constitutional law, for instance, in the works of Gunther Teubner and other theorists influenced by him, it usually located constitutional law on a continuum with private law. Indeed, the connection between constitutional law and private law was already anticipated by the very earliest sociotheoretical reflections on constitutional law – for instance, in the writings of theorists as diverse as Savigny and Marx. In contemporary debate, the indifference of legal sociology toward constitutional law (construed categorically as public law) is no doubt in part attributable to the fact that the field of sociolegal studies evolved in tandem with the development of research on legal pluralism and with the growth of attendant theoretical and explanatory models. In the spirit of Eugen Ehrlich, analysis of legal pluralism was historically associated with the sphere of private–legal relations, which meant that sociolegal inquiry into constitutional norms was also directed toward the domain of
01 Jun 2000-Social & Legal Studies
TL;DR: The work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) in South Africa has been studied in a theoretical context that may explain how its attempt to overcome the tensions between truth seeking and amnesty giving stumbled on its use of law to bring about reconciliation.
Abstract: This article aims to situate the fascinating and deeply controversial work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa within a theoretical context that may explain how its attempt to overcome the tensions between truth seeking and amnesty giving stumbled on its use of law to bring about reconciliation. It locates the root of the problem in the dual nature of the TRC as public confessional and legal tribunal, and underlying it the incongruent logic of law on the one hand and reconciliation on the other, the former requiring the reductions of risks, the latter requiring risk to be embraced.
01 Jan 2000
01 Dec 1998-European Law Journal
01 Jan 1991-Quarterly Journal of Speech
01 Feb 1997-Review of Metaphysics
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors explore the development of the open method of co-ordination, addressing whether it is a new form of governance from two related perspectives: to what extent can the method be effectively applied outside the scope of economic policy, and will it lead to policy transfer to the EU and hence act only as a transitional mode of governance?
Abstract: Taking economic co-ordination in EMU as a starting point, this article explores the development of the open method of co-ordination, addressing whether it is a new form of governance from two related perspectives. First, to what extent can the method be effectively applied outside the scope of economic policy? Second, will it lead to policy transfer to the EU and hence act only as a transitional mode of governance? Identified at the Lisbon European Council, the method codified practices such as benchmarking, target-setting and peer review developed in the Luxembourg, Cardiff and Cologne processes. The method offers a new approach to governance of the EU as a heterarchical, decentred and dynamic process. It supports and radicalizes the principle of subsidiarity; offers an alternative to the treaty rules on enhanced co-operation; and addresses some of the legitimacy issues inherent in the EU. In EMU, the method arose out of a specific policy framework with a common monetary policy complemented by the coordination of national economic policies. The recent recommendation issued against Ireland is the first example of the operation of the method in EMU and shows how debate can be stimulated and how different and arguably equally valid perspectives defended. The particular experience of EMU with a sound money, sound finance paradigm, a long history of project-building by key elites and the central role of the European Council suggest similar conditions are required for the effective application of the method in other policy spheres. The context within which the method has operated to date is contingent and could change either over time or between policy fields. If so, the very openness of the method may serve to reconfigure the boundaries of competence between the Member States and the Union, after all.
19 Jun 2015-Acta Politica
01 Jan 2002-Punishment & Society
TL;DR: In this article, the authors claim that restorative justice is the opposite of retributive justice, and use indigenous justice practices and was the first step towards restoring justice in the United States.
Abstract: Advocates’ claims about restorative justice contain four myths: (1) restorative justice is the opposite of retributive justice; (2) restorative justice uses indigenous justice practices and was the...