The first comprehensive examination of how the Charter influences political choices on social policy.

Although the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is twenty years old, little is known about how it affects those who wield power, what influence it has on legislative decisions, or to what extent the government believes it should be constrained by Charter concerns. For most laws Parliament has the final word on how social policy is balanced against protected rights. Thus the extent to which legislation is sensitive towards rights depends on how those who develop, propose, and assess policy view the Charter. How influential are governmental legal advisors? How risk averse or risk tolerant are government ministers when pursuing legislative goals that may result in Charter challenges? How capable is Parliament in requiring government to justify and explain legislative choices that may impair rights? In Charter Conflicts Janet Hiebert examines these questions while analyzing the Charter's influence on controversial legislative decisions such as social benefits for lesbians and gay men, the regulation of tobacco advertising, the rules of evidence for sexual assault trials, the use of DNA for law enforcement purposes, and the rules for police searches of private residences. She questions the broadly held assumption that only courts are capable of respecting rights, arguing that Parliament shares responsibility with the judiciary for resolving Charter conflicts. She views the Charter's significance less in terms of the judiciary overruling Parliament than in the incentives and pressures it provides for public and political officials to satisfy themselves that legislation is consistent with protected rights.

The Charter of the United Nations was signed in 1945 by 51 countries representing all continents, paving the way for the creation of the United Nations on 24 October 1945. The Statute of the International Court of Justice forms part of the Charter. The aim of the Charter is to save humanity from war; to reaffirm human rights and the dignity and worth of the human person; to proclaim the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small; and to promote the prosperity of all humankind. The Charter is the foundation of international peace and security.

Public education in the United States faces an unprecedented crisis. The explosive growth of charter schools over the last two decades has shaken the status quo to its core. At stake are the future of public schools and how they will continue to educate our nation's youth. ​Clashes over money and ideologies have led to a struggle between the public education establishment and those at the forefront of educational reform. The conflict is being waged in the court of public opinion, as well as in courtrooms throughout the country. While the outcome is impossible to predict, both sides are preparing for a fight of David versus Goliath proportions. Collaboration is critical to the success of both. In Charter Storm, they use their combined knowledge and research of over 120 individual interviews over five years to teach you about-- - essential insights those new to the charter school movement need for their schools to survive and thrive - how aggressive educational establishment pushback threatens to sweep away the most vulnerable - key issues authorizers must know to effectively oversee their organizations - the overwhelming challenges the educational establishment faces today and how it can effectively navigate the changing local and national educational landscape - why active participation and support of charter school associations are essential to each charter school and the educational reform movement's long-term success - what every charter school parent needs to know to create and support an exceptional educational experience for his or her children.

Against the background of climate change, Ottavio Quirico explores how regulatory conflicts between the Energy Charter Treaty and the law of the European Union should be resolved.

In Governing with the Charter, James Kelly clearly demonstrates that our current democratic deficit is not the result of the Supreme Court’s judicial activism. On the contrary, an activist framers’ intent surrounds the Charter, and the Supreme Court has simply, and appropriately, responded to this new constitutional environment. While the Supreme Court is admittedly a political actor, it is not the sole interpreter of the Charter, as the court, the cabinet, and bureaucracy all respond to the document, which has ensured the proper functioning of constitutional supremacy in Canada. Kelly analyzes the parliamentary hearings on the Charter and also draws from interviews with public servants, senators, and members of parliament actively involved in appraising legislation to ensure that it is consistent with the Charter. He concludes that the principal institutional outcome of the Charter has been a marginalization of Parliament and that this is due to the Prime Minister’s decision on how to govern with the Charter.

Beginning with an examination of the role of traditional institutions such as Parliament, Cabinet, the Supreme Court, and political parties, Canada: State of the Federation 2002 affirms the long-held belief that these bodies do not provide effective forums for interregional bargaining, creating a void that has been filled at least in part by executive federalism. Contributors conclude that the performance of traditional institutions, taken as a whole, has deteriorated over the last several decades, placing more pressure on the processes of executive federalism.