Article Sidebar
DOI:
10.4314/mlr.v12i1.2Article Details
a) Copyright of the content of the articles shall be retained by the author subject to the condition that it cannot be republished in another journal. The reproduction of the article as book chapter requires the acknowledgement of its prior publication in Mizan Law Review.
b) An author is entitled to deposit her/his published article in any Open Access repository subject to the condition that the format and layout shall not be changed. Depositing a post-publication version in any repository requires acknowledgement of the earlier version by indicating the Volume, Issue and page numbers of the version published in Mizan Law Review.
c) Articles published in Mizan Law Review are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND)
Privacy Statement
a) Where the Editorial Team deems it necessary, the editors may remove precise reference to names of individuals in case comments.
b) The names and email addresses submitted to and published in Mizan Law Review shall not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.
Disclaimer
Opinions expressed in articles, comments, case comments and sharing thoughts do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editorial Team, or the publisher of the journal, i.e., Center for Law in Sustainable Development, St. Mary’s University.
Main Article Content
Constitutional Adjudication by Parliaments: Lessons from Comparative Experience
Abstract
This article explores historical experiences in France and Brazil and the contemporary constitutional set-up in China where parliaments are empowered to adjudicate constitutional issues. It also identifies the lessons thereof for the constitutional design in Ethiopia. Comparison among three legal regimes has been made with regard to the rationales and contexts under which legislative or non-legislative parliaments were entrusted with the power of interpreting constitutions. The experience in France (1799 to 1946), Brazil (1824-1891) and China’s current practice in constitutional interpretation are examined. The experiences across time in different jurisdictions are used to analyze the extent to which (non-)legislative assemblies are appropriate organs to adjudicate constitutional issues. The Constitution of Ethiopia is expected to take lessons from the difficulties encountered from the experiences of France, Brazil and China and resort to other institutional choices for constitutional adjudication.
Key terms
Constitutional adjudication · Constitutional courts · Parliament · House of Federation
