Emilios Christodoulidis

Bio: Emilios Christodoulidis is an academic researcher from University of Glasgow. The author has contributed to research in topics: Politics & Philosophy of law. The author has an hindex of 13, co-authored 80 publications receiving 770 citations. Previous affiliations of Emilios Christodoulidis include University of Edinburgh.

Self‐Defeating Civic Republicanism*

Abstract: The author discusses the recent attempt by constitutional theorists to develop a theory about the empowerment of political community through law. Having outlined the civic republican position, he then examines Ackerman's example of the difference between marriage and love, as an analogy for law and politics, or in republican terminology, “constitutional” and “ordinary” politics respectively. These oppositions are set up around the purchase they offer to the question of community. In turning Ackerman's example against him, his objective is to show that the language of law inhibits rather than facilitates the quest for community.

Law and globalisation

Abstract: This chapter discusses three important ways in which globalisation undermines some deep-rooted assumptions of modern legal thought. First, it makes it increasingly diffi-cult for legal study to be contained within the territorial boundaries of national legal systems. Second, while traditional jurisprudence focused exclusively on municipal and public international law, globalisation requires notice of other forms of legal ordering, such as the sui generis legal order of the European Union (EU). A third challenge addresses how globalisation may be undermining the cultural specificity of law, and asks whether in response, construct a theory of law that reaches across legal cultures. The context for Neil Walker's analysis is the growth of non-state entities, such as the EU, as rivals to states in claiming sovereignty. Walker argues that constitutionalism – which he sees as the vocabulary for the mutual articulation of law and politics – is intrinsic to the polity understood as the setting for the conduct of politics.

The open method as a new mode of governance: the case of soft economic policy co-ordination

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.

Restorative justice The real story

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...