International Refugee Law A Reader Book

This is probably the first comparative study of constitutional law out there, from back in 1885, and it remains a classic. Through a focus on the English experience, Dicey explains why Parliamentary Sovereignty and the "rule of law," a term he coined, defined the English (he often used the word even for the British or UK) constitutional experience. He showed the Parliament was indeed the true legal "sovereign" of the nation, showing through things like the Septennial Act of 1716 (which extended the length of Parliament) and the Act of Union of 1800, where Parliament basically absolved itself and created a new version that included Ireland, that it could do anything. He also showed that the "Rule of Law" defined English practice because most of the "constitution" was the result of judicial cases decided between individuals, and English practice and law abjured abstract rights for more concrete "remedies." It was the practicality of English legalism that constituted its genius, Dicey shows, and he has much to demonstrate the success of this program over the more "rigid" and "abstract" French constitutionalism (although he is sympathetic to American and Swiss forms of federal constitutions.)

Much of the comparative stuff at the heart of this book is disputable and has often been disputed (especially concerning the perils of French "droit administratif"), and Dicey often wants to contrast the modern English with an 18th century French constitutionalism as opposed to the modern, post-1870 Third Republic one, but many of his general outlines have some credence. Dicey is a crystalline clear writer, so this reads easy, but his fondness for logical exactitude does occasionally lead to tedium and some tough slogs. On the whole, this will remain the starting point for studying the English constitution, and the many constitutions that emerged from it or still contrast with it.