The chapter describes and analyses the principles of European Macroeconomic Constitution and how it guides the ECB and EU in its macroeconomic governance. The principles can be divided into objectives and safeguards. The main objective of the economic constitution, integration through internal market, continues but gets price stability as the main macroeconomic objective, and to an extent a more elaborated open market economy principle to guide EU institutions. The safeguards start from central bank independence that are further defined by the prohibition of central bank financing and a narrow central banking model without explicit value judgments. Member States remain responsible for the other areas of economic policy with the obligation of sound fiscal policy. The principles form a logical whole and complement the earlier microeconomic constitution. However, the assumptions and theory backgrounds of the two constitutions differ substantially, which has many implications, including for the role of law and courts as well as independent experts, such as the ECB. These implications have even become apparent already in the earlier case law by the CJEU.

Much of this book has mapped the principles underpinning the UK Constitution. Judicial review provides an outlet by which those affected by government actions (including individuals, companies, pressure groups, and even other public bodies) can approach the courts to examine the lawfulness of such actions. It is the jurisdiction through which many of the most celebrated cases relating to the rule of law and separation of powers have been decided. The exercise of this jurisdiction therefore defines the courts’ relationship with other branches of government. This chapter assesses the basis for, and boundaries of, judicial review. It also examines the procedure by which judicial review is initiated and the remedies available for successful claimants.

This chapter debates whether litigation is a meaningful way to attack the problem of climate change mitigation. For the proponents of climate litigation, who side is taken by Cinnamon Piñon Carlarne, their action has the potential to ensure that states take more ambitious action than they would have taken otherwise. But the argument developed on this side is even stronger, namely that the courts have a positive duty to take decisions in support of mitigation of emissions. Guy Dwyer, for the sceptics, contends that litigation is the least promising way to go about addressing climate change mitigation because several unavoidable hurdles that face pro-climate litigants all but guarantee their defeat. Indeed, Dwyer argues, the number of cases that might have caused emissions to be reduced can be counted on half of one hand.

This chapter debates whether litigation is a meaningful way to attack the problem of climate change mitigation. For the proponents of climate litigation, who side is taken by Cinnamon Piñon Carlarne, their action has the potential to ensure that states take more ambitious action than they would have taken otherwise. But the argument developed on this side is even stronger, namely that the courts have a positive duty to take decisions in support of mitigation of emissions. Guy Dwyer, for the sceptics, contends that litigation is the least promising way to go about addressing climate change mitigation because several unavoidable hurdles that face pro-climate litigants all but guarantee their defeat. Indeed, Dwyer argues, the number of cases that might have caused emissions to be reduced can be counted on half of one hand.

In relation to foreign relations, South African courts have traditionally tended not to interfere with the executive. In the time before the democratic constitutional dispensation, foreign affairs was regarded as a prerogative of the executive on which the judiciary could not adjudicate. In the post-democratic dispensation, courts have held all exercise of public power, including in foreign relations, to be subject to judicial scrutiny. Yet, even then, a wide margin of discretion has been extended foreign affairs. In more recent years courts appear to be pulling back on the margin of discretion. This chapters reviews the recent jurisprudence of the South African Constitutional Court in matters relating to foreign relations and assesses the erosion of the discretion of the executive in foreign relations and whether this means the emergence of the judiciary in foreign relations.