English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

espanolEste ensayo explora la polemica entre Bejamin Constant y el Abate de Pardt sobre la ultima dictadura de Simon Bolivar. Se argumenta que dicho debate hizo luz sobre una falla clave en el aparato del constitucionalismo liberal: la ausencia de una teoria respecto a los poderes de emergencia. Las nuevas naciones de America Latina escribieron constitutciones siguiendo los lineamientos de del teorico Benjamin Constant sobre no incluir poderes de emergencia. Aunque Bolivar era un admirador de Constant no siguio sus prescripciones sobre poderes de emergencia temporales. EnglishThis paper examines the 1830 polemic between Benjamin Constant and the Abbe de Pradt over Simon Bolivar’s last dictatorship. I argue that in the debate a key flaw of liberal constitutionalism was evidenced: the lack of a theory of emergency powers. The new nations of Latin America drafted constitutions following Constant’s ideas regarding emergency provisions. Constant had argued forcibly against broad emergency provisions. While Bolivar was an admirer of Constant, he deviated from his constitutional thinking regarding temporary emergency provisions.

The Liberal Cloak: The Constant-De Pradt Controversy on Bolívar’s Last Dictatorship