Advertisement

The Italian Senate under Reform: Sacrifice or Self-Reflection?

  • Jörg Luther
Chapter

Abstract

Albrecht Weber’s “Europäische Verfassungsvergleichung” (2010) is a wonderful “late work” that applies to the constitutional framework of public powers a method first developed for the analysis of the “Fundamental Rights in Europe and North America”. This method looks at the historical context, at the gradual development of textures and at the functions of fundamental principles and organisational structures, including a multilevel approach and moments of evaluation and assessment (Wertung) based more on fundamental principles and rights than on organisation and powers. There is a personal colour and also a national style in this comparative law methodology mostly based on a philosophy of legal positivism. The European comparison of constitutions aims to be helpful for practices of constitutional reform, constitutional adjudication and international law and for the systemic construction of an ius constitutionale europaeum.

The question is whether the knowledge of comparative law always promotes cultural and economic development or sometimes endangers a specific constitutional heritage and identity. Comparative constitutional law has always been influenced by comparative private law know‐how on legal transplants and circulation of legal models that even in “public” law often happen in silence: “ça va sans dire”. The empirical research on the real use of comparative arguments and foreign materials in constitutional law‐making and judgments is still in the earliest stages.

Keywords

Regional Council Democratic Legitimacy Catholic Social Teaching Legislative Power Direct Election 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aimo, P. (1977). Bicameralismo e regioni. Milan: Edizioni di Comunità.Google Scholar
  2. Amato, G. (1980). Una Repubblica da riforma. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  3. Baldini, V. (Ed.). (2007). La camera degli interessi territoriali nello stato composto. Napoli: Satura.Google Scholar
  4. Bonfiglio, S. (2006). Il Senato in Italia. Roma: Laterza.Google Scholar
  5. Bon Valsassina, M. (1959). Il bicameralismo imperfetto o limitato nelle Costituzioni contemporanee. Napoli: Jovene.Google Scholar
  6. Conte di Cavour, C. B. (1848). La riforma del Senato. Il Risorgimento, 27 May(130), 1.Google Scholar
  7. Cicero, M. T. (about 50 BC). De Legibus, http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/leg.shtml. Accessed 31 November 2014.
  8. Cicero, M. T. (45 BC/1877/2005). Tusculan Disputations. Translated by C. D. Yonge. New York: Harper & Brothers (1877), eBook Project Gutenberg (2005), http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14988/14988-h/14988-h.htm. Accessed 31 November 2014.
  9. Ciolli, I. (2010). Il territorio rappresentato. Napoli: Jovene.Google Scholar
  10. Della Cananea, G. (2014). The End of (Symmetric) Bicameralism or a Novus Ordo? Italian Journal of Public Law, 6, 1–8.Google Scholar
  11. Fusaro, C. (2013). Bicameralism in Italy. 150 Years of Poor Design, Disappointing Performances, Aborted Reforms. http://www.carlofusaro.it/in_english/Bicameralism_in_ITA_2013.pdf. Accessed 31 November 2014Google Scholar
  12. Gaius (about 160). Gai Institutiones, http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/gaius1.html. Accessed 31 November 2014.
  13. Gross, T. (2003). Zwei-Kammer-Parlamente in der Europäischen Union. Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Ausländerrecht, 63, 29–57.Google Scholar
  14. Harrington, J. (1977). The Political Works of J. Harrington. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Leen, A. (2013). Fiscal Bicameralism: The Core of a EU Constitution (24 March). http://ssrn.com/abstract=2238647 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2238647. Accessed 31 November 2014Google Scholar
  16. Luciani, M. (2014). Il bicameralismo, oggi. Rivista Associazione Italiana dei Costituzionalisti, 2. http://www.rivistaaic.it/la-riforma-del-bicameralismo-oggi.html. Accessed 31 November 2014Google Scholar
  17. Luther, J. (2014). Il bicameralismo si supera se si reinventa (ma anche se si rottama). Il Piemonte delle autonomie, 1(2). http://piemonteautonomie.cr.piemonte.it/cms/index.php/il-bicameralismo-si-supera-se-non-si-reinventa. Accessed 31 November 2014Google Scholar
  18. Luther, J., Passaglia, P., & Tarchi, R. (Eds.). (2006). A World of Second Chambers. Milan: Giuffré.Google Scholar
  19. Madison, J. (1788). The Senate. The Federalist, 62, 27 February 1788, http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa62.htm. Accessed 31 November 2014
  20. Mangiameli, S. (2014). The Regions and the Reforms. In S. Mangiameli (Ed.), Italian Regionalism: Between Unitary Traditions and Federal Processes (pp. 1–34). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Mastias, J., & Grangé, J. (1987). Les secondes chambres du parlément en Europe occidentale. Paris: Economica.Google Scholar
  22. Mattarella, S. (1983). Das Zweikammersystem in Italien. Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts, 108, 370–391.Google Scholar
  23. Mosca, G. (1910). La riforma del Senato italiano. Rivista di diritto pubblico e della pubblica amministrazione in Italia, 2(1), 564–570.Google Scholar
  24. Neiva, P. (2009). Presidentialism, Bicameralism, Federalism and Budget Deficits: The Effects of Political Institutions on Government Spending. http://paperroom.ipsa.org/papers/paper_257.pdf. Accessed 31 November 2014Google Scholar
  25. Occhiocupo, N. (1975). La “Camera delle regioni”. Milan: Giuffre.Google Scholar
  26. Paladin, L. (1984). Tipologia e fondamenti giustificativi del bicameralismo. Quaderni costituzionali, 4, 219–242.Google Scholar
  27. Palermo, F. (1997). Germania ed Austria: modelli federali e bicamerali a confronto. Trento: Università degli Studi.Google Scholar
  28. Palma, L. (1882). La riforma del Senato in Italia. Nuova antologia, 61, 193–223.Google Scholar
  29. Pezzini, B. (1990). Il Bundesrat della Germania federale. Milan: Giuffré.Google Scholar
  30. Provincia di Roma (Ed.). (2003). Un Senato delle autonomie per l’Italia federale. Napoli: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane.Google Scholar
  31. Russell, M. (2013). The Contemporary House of Lords: Westminster Bicameralism Revived. Oxford: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schmitt, P. (2014). Comparative overview of consultative practices within the second chambers of EU national legislatures. European Union. http://cor.europa.eu/en/documentation/studies/Documents/comparative-overview-of-consultative-practices-within-the-second-chambers-of-eu-national-legislatures.pdf. Accessed 31 November 2014Google Scholar
  33. Sgrò, F. (2012). Il Senato e il principio della divisione dei poteri. Milan: Giuffré.Google Scholar
  34. Tsebelis, G., & Money, I. (1997). Bicameralism. Cambridge: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tupini, G. (1946). Il Senato. Bologna: Zanichelli.Google Scholar
  36. Ugo, G. B. (1881). Il Senato nel Governo Costituzionale. Torino: Loescher.Google Scholar
  37. Violini, L. (1989). Bundesrat e Camera delle Regioni. Milan: Giuffré.Google Scholar
  38. Waldron, J. (2012). Bicameralism. New York University School of Law, Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series. Working Paper No. 12–19. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2045646. Accessed 31 November 2014Google Scholar
  39. Weber, A. (2010). Europäische Verfassungsvergleichung. Ein Studienbuch. Munich: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
  40. Weber, Y. (1972). La crise du bicamérisme. Revue du droit public et de la science politique, 5, 573–606.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jörg Luther
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Piemonte Orientale “A. Avogadro”NovaraItaly

Personalised recommendations