About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

61 N. Ir. Legal Q. 349 (2010)
How Unfair Is Cross-Community Consent? Voting Power in the Northern Ireland Assembly

handle is hein.journals/nilq61 and id is 357 raw text is: NILQ 61(4): 349-62 How unfair is cross-community consent? Voting power in the Northern Ireland Assembly ALEX SCHWARTZ* Queen's University Belfast R ick Wilford astutely describes the system of government in Northern Ireland as parliamentary life, but not quite as we know it.1 Naturally, the we here refers to those of us who are most familiar with the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy. Undeniably, many of the features of the Westminster model are either absent or barely recognisable in Northern Ireland.2 Perhaps most fundamentally, the constitution of Northern Ireland does not concentrate public power in the hands of transient electoral victors. Instead, the scheme seeks to include all major political factions within a broad power-sharing coalition. Thus, in contrast to Westminster-style majority rule, most commentators agree that the system of government in Northern Ireland is an example of consociational democracy.3 One of the central elements of Northern Ireland's consociational framework is the idea of cross-community support. That principle has (at least) two dimensions. On the one hand, the representational legitimacy of public authorities, ranging from the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Parades Commission, the Commission for Victims and Survivors, to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, is frequently understood (or contested) in terms of cross-community support.4 On the other hand, the idea of cross- community support finds concrete expression in the decision-making procedures of the Northern Ireland Assembly where, with respect to certain key decisions, cross- community consent is a formal procedural requirement.5 * I am indebted to Moshe Machover, John McGarry, and Rick Wilford for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article. 1 R Wilford, Northern Ireland: the politics of constraint (2010) 63 Parhamentary Affairs 134, at 137. 2 Ibid. pp. 137-40. 3 See D Horowitz, The Northern Ireland Agreement: clear, consociational and risky in J McGarry (ed.), Northern Ireland and the Divided World (Oxford: OUP 2001); see also R Taylor Introduction in R Taylor (ed.), Consociaional Theory (Oxon: Roudedge 2009); and B O'Leary The nature of the Agreement (1999) 4 Fordbam Journalof InternationalLaw 22. For a dissenting interpretation, see P Dixon, Why the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland is not consociational (2005) 76 PoliticalQuarterl 357. 4 See G Anthony Judicial review in Northern Ireland: a guide to the 'real' devolution issues (2009) 14Judidal Review. 5 Agreement reached in multiparty talks (The Agreement), Strand One, para. 5(d).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most