Typical constitutional forms of interaction between the foreign parliament chambers
Keywords:
constitution, interaction between the parliament chambers, typical forms of interaction between the parliament chambers
Abstract
The article presents the author's analysis of the constitutional acts of European states with a bicameral parliament with a view to fixing some typical forms of interaction between the parliament chambers in them. The study has showed that the joint sessions (on taking the oath by the head of state, presidential elections, deciding to declare war, granting pardon); formation of permanent and temporary committees and commissions; formation of the higher bodies of state power or appointment of officials serve as typical forms of interaction between the parliament chambers. Within the legislative sphere, it is disclosed such typical forms of interaction between the parliament chambers as the bill approval in both chambers in an identical version and "tacit consent". It is concluded that the typical forms of interaction between the parliament chambers of European states reflect their sovereign but established approaches, elaborated by the doctrine and tested by practice.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Abramova A. I. 2008. Interaction of the Chambers of the Russian Parliament in the Modern Legislative Process. Journal of Russian Law. # 7. pp. 31-39. (in Russian).
Antón Chávez, A.D.P (2017). Influencia de la noticia en la imagen corporativa de una municipalidad desde la percepción del ciudadano. Opción, Año 33, No. 84 (2017): 90- 119.
Bahador M., Keshtkar, M. M., (2017). Reviewing and modeling the optimal output velocity of slot linear diffusers to reduce air contamination in the surgical site of operating rooms, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER SCIENCE AND NETWORK SECURITY, 17 (8), 82-89.
Ballington J. 2005. An Approach to Democracy: Why Include Women? International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Sweden. 265 p.
Bressanelli E., Chelotti N. 2018. The European Parliament and economic governance: explaining a case of limited influence. The Journal of Legislative Studies. Stable URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2018. 1444627.
Brunner, J.J & Ganga-Contreras, F. (2017). Vulnerabilidad educacional en América Latina: Una aproximación desde la sociología de la educación con foco en la educación temprana Opción, Año 33, No. 84 (2017): 12-37.
Chirkin V. Y. 2011. Upper Chamber of Modern Parliament: a comparative legal study. Moscow. 114 p. (in Russian).
Druckman J. N., Thies M. F. 2002. The Importance of Concurrence: The Impact of Bicameralism on Government Formation and Duration. American Journal of Political Science. Vol. 46. #4. pp. 760-771. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3088432.
Halligan J., Miller R., Marcus P. J. 2007. Parliament in the Twenty-first Century: Institutional Reform and Emerging Roles. Melbourne University Press. Melbourne University Publishing. 328 p.
Ilie C. 2010. Strategic uses of parliamentary forms of address: The case of the U.K. Parliament and the Swedish Riksdag. Journal of Pragmatics. Vol. 42. Issue 4. Pages. pp. 885-911.
Ivanova K.A. 2015. Promulgation of laws by the head of state: Russian and foreign experience // Actual problems of Russian law. # 6. pp. 68- 71. (in Russian).
Keshtkar M. M. (2013) Numerical Simulation of Radiative Heat Transfer in a Boiler Furnace Contained with a Non-Gray Gas, International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 1(3), 137- 148.
Keshtkar M. M., Ghazanfari M. (2017). Numerical Investigation of Fluid Flow and Heat Transfer Inside a 2D Enclosure with Three Hot Obstacles on the Ramp under the Influence of a Magnetic Field, Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, 7 (3), 1647-1657.
Keshtkar, M. (2013) Research Article Simulation of Thermo-Hydraulic Behavior of a Lid-Driven Cavity Considering Gas Radiation Effect and a Heat Generation Zone, International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 1(1), 8-23.
Lazareva M.N., 2008. Parliamentary procedures in the Czech Republic and Russia: a comparative analysis. Journal of Russian Law. # 11. pp. 105-111. (in Russian).
Nikonova L.I., Minasyan A.A. 2016. Constitutional spheres and forms of interaction of the chambers of parliaments: foreign experience. Science and education: economy and economics; entrepreneurship; law and management. # 11 (78). pp. 82-87. (in Russian).
Norris P., Inglehart R. 2001. Cultural Obstacles to Equal Representation. Journal of Democracy. Vol. 12. # 3. pp. 126-140.
Russell M., Sciara M. 2006. Parliament: the house of lords – a more representative and assertive chamber? Palgrave Review of British Politics. pp. 122-136. Stable URL: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.105 7/9780230592605_9.
Shvedova N. 2005. Obstacles to Women’s Participation in Parliament. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, 265 p.
Thomas P. G. 2009. Parliament Scrutiny of Government Performance in Australia. Australian Journal of Public Administration. Stable URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 8500.2009.00646.x
Vig N. J., Paschen H. 2000. Parliaments and Technology: The Development of Technology Assessment in Europe. State University of New York. 399 р.
Waikeung T. 2017. Do female legislators have different policy priorities than their male colleagues in an undemocratic/semi-democratic legislature? The case of Hong Kong. The Journal of Legislative Studies. Vol. 1. Issue 4. pp. 44- 70.
Antón Chávez, A.D.P (2017). Influencia de la noticia en la imagen corporativa de una municipalidad desde la percepción del ciudadano. Opción, Año 33, No. 84 (2017): 90- 119.
Bahador M., Keshtkar, M. M., (2017). Reviewing and modeling the optimal output velocity of slot linear diffusers to reduce air contamination in the surgical site of operating rooms, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTER SCIENCE AND NETWORK SECURITY, 17 (8), 82-89.
Ballington J. 2005. An Approach to Democracy: Why Include Women? International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Sweden. 265 p.
Bressanelli E., Chelotti N. 2018. The European Parliament and economic governance: explaining a case of limited influence. The Journal of Legislative Studies. Stable URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2018. 1444627.
Brunner, J.J & Ganga-Contreras, F. (2017). Vulnerabilidad educacional en América Latina: Una aproximación desde la sociología de la educación con foco en la educación temprana Opción, Año 33, No. 84 (2017): 12-37.
Chirkin V. Y. 2011. Upper Chamber of Modern Parliament: a comparative legal study. Moscow. 114 p. (in Russian).
Druckman J. N., Thies M. F. 2002. The Importance of Concurrence: The Impact of Bicameralism on Government Formation and Duration. American Journal of Political Science. Vol. 46. #4. pp. 760-771. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3088432.
Halligan J., Miller R., Marcus P. J. 2007. Parliament in the Twenty-first Century: Institutional Reform and Emerging Roles. Melbourne University Press. Melbourne University Publishing. 328 p.
Ilie C. 2010. Strategic uses of parliamentary forms of address: The case of the U.K. Parliament and the Swedish Riksdag. Journal of Pragmatics. Vol. 42. Issue 4. Pages. pp. 885-911.
Ivanova K.A. 2015. Promulgation of laws by the head of state: Russian and foreign experience // Actual problems of Russian law. # 6. pp. 68- 71. (in Russian).
Keshtkar M. M. (2013) Numerical Simulation of Radiative Heat Transfer in a Boiler Furnace Contained with a Non-Gray Gas, International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 1(3), 137- 148.
Keshtkar M. M., Ghazanfari M. (2017). Numerical Investigation of Fluid Flow and Heat Transfer Inside a 2D Enclosure with Three Hot Obstacles on the Ramp under the Influence of a Magnetic Field, Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, 7 (3), 1647-1657.
Keshtkar, M. (2013) Research Article Simulation of Thermo-Hydraulic Behavior of a Lid-Driven Cavity Considering Gas Radiation Effect and a Heat Generation Zone, International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 1(1), 8-23.
Lazareva M.N., 2008. Parliamentary procedures in the Czech Republic and Russia: a comparative analysis. Journal of Russian Law. # 11. pp. 105-111. (in Russian).
Nikonova L.I., Minasyan A.A. 2016. Constitutional spheres and forms of interaction of the chambers of parliaments: foreign experience. Science and education: economy and economics; entrepreneurship; law and management. # 11 (78). pp. 82-87. (in Russian).
Norris P., Inglehart R. 2001. Cultural Obstacles to Equal Representation. Journal of Democracy. Vol. 12. # 3. pp. 126-140.
Russell M., Sciara M. 2006. Parliament: the house of lords – a more representative and assertive chamber? Palgrave Review of British Politics. pp. 122-136. Stable URL: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.105 7/9780230592605_9.
Shvedova N. 2005. Obstacles to Women’s Participation in Parliament. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, 265 p.
Thomas P. G. 2009. Parliament Scrutiny of Government Performance in Australia. Australian Journal of Public Administration. Stable URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 8500.2009.00646.x
Vig N. J., Paschen H. 2000. Parliaments and Technology: The Development of Technology Assessment in Europe. State University of New York. 399 р.
Waikeung T. 2017. Do female legislators have different policy priorities than their male colleagues in an undemocratic/semi-democratic legislature? The case of Hong Kong. The Journal of Legislative Studies. Vol. 1. Issue 4. pp. 44- 70.
Published
2018-02-27
How to Cite
Dzybova, S., Markhgeym, M., Minasyan, A., Plohih, A., & Stus, N. (2018). Typical constitutional forms of interaction between the foreign parliament chambers. Amazonia Investiga, 7(12), 181-186. Retrieved from https://amazoniainvestiga.info/index.php/amazonia/article/view/587
Issue
Section
Articles
.gif)
