Comments on: Panel 4: A Constitutional Issue: DSD at the Birth of a Nation

By: daisyhudson

daisyhudson — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:51:04 +0000

Who wrote the constution of Kosovo? What were their qualifications? What steps did the wrirer take to write this constution? What rights do the constution protect? And what was the ratification process?

By: Rene Pfromm

Rene Pfromm — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 19:48:40 +0000

Both, Eileen and Nadil, mention the importance of “identity” for constitutions as DSD. Eileen also points out the distrust of the people, the role of the government before and during ethnical conflicts, as well as the role of the leaders and their constituencies. Against the background of ethnical conflicts and genocides, I wonder how these issues can successfully be handled when negotiating and designing a post-conflict constitution…

By: Rene Pfromm

Rene Pfromm — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 19:47:31 +0000

Bob Mnookin raises the question whether integration is always the best approach to dealing with ethnic cleavages. Whilst I agree with his point in general, the problem remains where separation does not work, e.g. for economic reasons, or (as is also pointed out in comment #7) where there is no clear geographic cut between the ethnic groups (cf. ex-Yugoslavia).

Regarding Bon’s comments on the federal structure of Belgium, I am also wondering what role the (in fact quite small) German federal community in Belgium (around 73.000 people) plays, and how constitution and federalism work for them as one of the three communities.

By: Ines Wu

Ines Wu — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:45:39 +0000

I wondered about Eileen’s final comment to the student’s question about the situation in Lebanon. She said that people should not wait for the elites to take action and should be able to do something to prevent the situation from going violent. This is a very powerful statement. However, I wondered about its feasibility. It seems to me that “people” is a rather vague concept in this setting. We usually talk in terms of stakeholders and interest groups in the DSD context, for this is the way to sort people’s interests and target them. But what is “people’s” interest? To me it’s rather a collection of interests of people from different groups. They can be radically different if not contradicting each other. And if my understanding is right, then the level of specification is just not right.

By: Terry Amsler

Terry Amsler — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 00:08:54 +0000

It only makes sense that the issue of legitimacy of constitutions is strongly connected to the processes and participation by which they are framed, formed, adopted and changed over time. And I agree with earlier commentators that these matters my be usefully examined and impacted through DR theory and DR system design. On the subject of managing shorter term instability, the attention (through DR design frameworks and processes) to contested yet “engagable” resources and power (and power-sharing) issues would often be far more helpful, in the short term anyway, than hand-wringing about historical/ethnic antagonisms and contestations. This approach offers the same benefits as “brief therapy” — namely that small successes will yield new framings, political imagination and will, and possible solutions.

This is a great discussion, and suggests exactly how ADR can offer benefits on the broader social, political and academic landscape.

By: Michael Moffitt

Michael Moffitt — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 21:03:27 +0000

Just a quick note to memorialize (because it does not appear elsewhere in this blog, and because I do not expect that it will appear in the written version of his remarks) that Bob Mnookin announced to the audience his aspiration to be named Ambassador to Belgium.

Bon chance / Veel geluk, Bob

By: hnmcp

hnmcp — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 19:57:07 +0000

The Lifespan of Written Constitutions – http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1212&context=berkeley_law_econ

By: Lisa Blomgren Bingham

Lisa Blomgren Bingham — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 19:53:49 +0000

There is a terrific research project underway by the following folks, who have written an article entitled “The Lifespan of Written Constitutions” (not yet published, I think)
Tom Ginsburg, University of Illinois, College of Law

Zachary Elkins, University of Illinois, Department of Political Science

James Melton, University of Illinois, Department of Political Science

They do an empirical analysis of all written constitutions adopted or amended since 1789. The average duration of a written constitution is 7 years. They conclude that constitutions are more durable if 1) they emerge under conditions characterized by an open, participatory process, 2) they to be specific, so that the parties will share information and commit to the negotiation process, and 3) they are flexible and subject to amendment for changing conditions.

Does this not suggest that both the process of developing the text, implementing it, enforcing them, and amending them are all legitimately considered subject to DSD?

By: David Lee

David Lee — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 19:45:32 +0000

I totally agree with Noah’s theoretical point that the constitutional process is a live and ever-evolving one – but from a system design perspective, how does one evaluate the “design” element though? Is the evaluation of a design and the recognition that the constitutional process is an evolving one necessarily a paradox?

By: David Lee

David Lee — Sat, 08 Mar 2008 19:43:01 +0000

Found this quotation from Lord Holingbroke which may be useful:

“”By constitution,” wrote Lord Bolingbroke in 1733, “we mean, whenever we speak with propriety and exactness, that assemblage of laws, institutions and customs, derived from certain fixed principles of reason, directed to certain fixed objects of public good, that compose the general system, according to which the community hath agreed to be governed.”

Somehow, I enjoyed Noah’s summary of the definition a little better!