This book addresses a phenomenon of growing importance in constitutional law worldwide: the application of constitutional rights not just to the state but also to private individuals. It opens with a clear diagnosis: courts and constitution-makers are increasingly willing to hold employers, landlords, sports clubs, and other nonstate entities responsible for failing to uphold constitutional obligations. This is important: “The move from vertical to a horizontal model changes who is responsible—that is, the very orientation of the rights relationship” (4).

Readers steeped in the Anglo-American constitutional tradition might meet the phenomenon with surprise and even skepticism. In the Anglo-American tradition, the main purpose of constitutional rights is to protect individuals from the state. Horizontal application does not square well with this idea. Horizontality breaks down the public-private divide and allows the constitution to reach deep into the private sphere. It hands the government a large mandate to direct private behavior, so that private actions must conform to the constitution.

Bambrick’s core argument is that the horizontal application of rights does not represent a departure from liberal constitutionalism but a layering of republican motifs within it. It reflects a “republican vein in liberal constitutiona

Join the Academy of Political Science and automatically receive Political Science Quarterly.

The Academy of Political Science, promotes objective, scholarly analyses of political, social, and economic issues. Through its conferences and publications APS provides analysis and insight into both domestic and foreign policy issues.

With neither an ideological nor a partisan bias, PSQ looks at facts and analyzes data objectively to help readers understand what is really going on in national and world affairs.

newsstand locator