Public Law and Politics by Emilios Christodoulidis and Stephen Tierney (eds)
| Author | Vito Breda |
| Published date | 01 November 2009 |
| Date | 01 November 2009 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2009.00780_4.x |
be required to communicate their views to the restof the shareholders. More pro-
phetically, Kouloridas cautions (270) thatthe managers of acquirers shouldbe sub-
ject to a remuneration policy that does not incentivise them to take risks at the
expense of their shareholders.
This book is surely essential reading for corporate lawyers, academicsand prac-
titioners alike. It draws togethereconomic and legal studies in this neglectedarea,
and draws powerful, if uncomfortable, conclusions.There is a wealth of helpful
tables, illustrations and graphs explaining various concepts, much comparative
material from other jurisdictions and a full bibliography. Managers, regulators,
policymakers and lawyers would all do well to read this noteworthy book.
JohnTownse nd
n
Emilios Christodoulidis and Stephen Tierney (eds), Public Law and Politics,
Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008, 232 pp, hb d55.00.
Public Lawa nd Politics is an excellent edited collection. It bringstogether a group of
world-class constitutional theorists to discuss the interplay between public law
and political theory. The book divides into three parts.The ¢rst discusses the con-
ceptual implications of Martin Loughlin’s idea of public law (TheIdeaofPublic
Law, Oxford, 2003). The second dwells on James Tully’s critical analysis of public
law as an instrument of political power. The third sheds new light on Frank
Michelman conception of quasi-procedural constitutional theory.
In the ¢rst chapter, the two editors introduce the book’s aims and methodologies.
In chapter two, Tierney argues that Loughlin’s conception of public law might pro-
vide an attractive methodological base for theor ising the development of modern
pluralist legal systems.Overlapping critical narratives, albeit developingvery di¡erent
claims, are presented in the following two chapters. In chapter three,Veitch suggests
that Loughlin’s methodology reduces the scope of constitutional narratives to a lim-
ited number of socio-political variables and by doing so fails to engage some of its
critical dilemmas. Next, in an articulate critique, Christodoulidis questions the selec-
tion of relevant political narratives presented inTheIdeaofPublicLaw,aswellasthe
book’s epistemic methodology. Discussi ng the risks of reducing the antagonistic
interplay between law and politics, Christodoulidis argues that Loughlin’s thesis
mighthavetheresultofideologicallymisplacingtheroleofpubliclawinmodern
constitutional polities. Loughlin response to these critiques in chapter ¢ve is construc-
tive and dialectical. For instance, Christodoulidis’s criticisms are incorporated in an
articulated respon se that gives credit to Loughlin’s re¢ned Hegelian methodology.
The second part of the book commences withTully’s re£ection on the imperialistic
role of public law in Europe and the former colonies. Tully argues that some of the
basic assumptions governing the ¢eld of public law are, sometimes unwittingly,
impregnated with imperialistic and hegemonic assumptions.Tully sustains his claim
with a series of compelling arguments that unravel the imperialistic implications of
n
Barrister, Lincoln’s Inn
Reviews
105 5
r2009 The Authors. Journal Compilationr20 09 The Modern LawReview Limited.
(2009) 72(6) 1035^1056
To continue reading
Request your trial