scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Martin M. Shapiro

Other affiliations: University of Georgia
Bio: Martin M. Shapiro is an academic researcher from University of California, Berkeley. The author has contributed to research in topics: Supreme court & Comparative law. The author has an hindex of 16, co-authored 36 publications receiving 2004 citations. Previous affiliations of Martin M. Shapiro include University of Georgia.

Papers
More filters
Book
01 Jan 1981

563 citations

Book
01 Jan 2002
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a review of judicial law making and its application in the context of private law and governance, including testing, comparison, prediction, and private law enforcement.
Abstract: 1. Law, Courts, and Social Science 2. Judicial Law-making and Precedent 3. Constitutional Judicial Review 4. Testing, Comparison, Prediction 5. Private Law and Governance 6. Abstract Review and Judicial Law-making

284 citations

Book
01 Jan 1968

118 citations


Cited by
More filters
Book
15 Apr 1996
TL;DR: Sassen argues that a profound transformation is taking place, a partial denationalizing of national territory seen in such agreements as NAFTA and the European Union as discussed by the authors, and that two arenas stand out in the new spatial and economic order: the global capital market and the series of codes and institutions that have mushroomed into an international human rights regime.
Abstract: From the Publisher: What determines the flow of labor and capital in this new global information economy? Who has the capacity to coordinate this new system, to create a measure of order? And what happens to territoriality and sovereignty, two fundamental principles of the modern state? Losing Control? is a major addition to our understanding of these questions. Examining the rise of private transnational legal codes and supranational institutions such as the World Trade Organization and universal human rights covenants, Saskia Sassen argues that sovereignty remains an important feature of the international system, but that it is no longer confined to the nation-state. Sassen argues that a profound transformation is taking place, a partial denationalizing of national territory seen in such agreements as NAFTA and the European Union. Two arenas stand out in the new spatial and economic order: the global capital market and the series of codes and institutions that have mushroomed into an international human rights regime. As Sassen shows, these two quasi-legal realms now have the power and legitimacy to demand accountability from national governments, with the ironic twist that both depend upon the state to enforce their goals.

1,635 citations

Book
01 Jan 2005
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors explained the EU political system and the decision-making procedures of the European Union, focusing on the role of the Single Market and the single market's role in the political system.
Abstract: Introduction: Explaining the EU Political System PART I: GOVERNMENT Executive Politics Legislative Politics Judicial Politics PART II: POLITICS Public Opinion Democracy, Parties and Elections Interest Representation PART III: POLICY-MAKING Regulation of the Single Market Expenditure Policies Economic and Monetary Union Citizen Freedom and Security Policies Foreign Policies Conclusions: Rethinking the European Union Appendix: Decision-making Procedures of the European Union Bibliography

1,282 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The second coming of capitalism raises a number of conundrums for our understanding of history at the end of the century as discussed by the authors, and some of its corollaries have been the subject of clamorous debate.
Abstract: he global triumph of capitalism at the millennium, its Second Coming, raises a number of conundrums for our understanding of history at the end of the century. Some of its corollaries—“plagues of the ‘new world order,’” Jacques Derrida (1994: 91) calls them, unable to resist apocalyptic imagery—have been the subject of clamorous debate. Others receive less mention. Thus, for example, populist polemics have dwelt on the planetary conjuncture, for good or ill, of “homogenization and difference” (e.g., Barber 1992); on the simultaneous, synergistic spiraling of wealth and poverty; on the rise of a “new feudalism,” a phoenix disfigured, of worldwide proportions (cf. Connelly and Kennedy 1994).1 For its part, scholarly debate has focused on the confounding effects of rampant

1,107 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In contrast to most international regimes, human rights regimes are not generally enforced by interstate action as discussed by the authors, and the distinctiveness of such regimes lies instead in their empowerment of individual citizens to bring suit to challenge the domestic activities of their own government.
Abstract: The e ftieth anniversary of the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights marks an appropriate moment to reconsider the reasons why governments construct international regimes to adjudicate and enforce human rights. Such regimes include those established under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights, and the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These arrangements differ from most other forms of institutionalizedinternational cooperation in both their ends and their means. Unlike international institutions governing trade, monetary, environmental, or security policy, international human rights institutions are not designed primarily to regulate policy externalities arising from societal interactions across borders, but to hold governments accountable for purely internal activities.In contrast to most international regimes, moreover, human rights regimes are not generally enforced by interstate action.Although most arrangements formally empower governments to challenge one another, such challenges almost never occur. The distinctiveness of such regimes lies instead in their empowerment of individual citizens to bring suit to challenge the domestic activities of their own government. Independent courts and commissions attached to such regimes often respond to such individual claimsby judging that the applicationof domestic rules or legislationviolates international commitments,even where such legislationhas been

959 citations