Paolo Sandro

@paolosandro

Associate Professor of Public Law and Legal Theory @lawatleeds.bsky.social, author of 'The Making of Constitutional Democracy: From Creation to Application of Law' (Hart 2022), Open Access at

1492 Siguiendo6585 Seguidores6272 Publicaciones

Reddit YouTube YouTube Website Bluesky

¿Es tu perfil?Reclámalo y paolosandro.dirty.social es tuyo.Reclamar perfil

Paolo Sandro@paolosandro· 25d

s this a pigeon meme:
topt text: Ilan Wurmen and X account Armadillo Jackal
middle text, near the butterfly: claim that certain races cannot assimilate into American culture
bottom text: is this racism?

Paolo Sandro@paolosandro· 27d

Sixth day in a row that Manchester is like this. No clear alert to the public from the local and regional authorities, nothing. My daughter's nursery didn't receive anything. @mayorofgm.bsky.social, what's happening?

PM2.5 concentration is currently 7.8 times the World Health Organization annual PM2.5 guideline value.

Paolo Sandro@paolosandro· 29d

A screenshot of the two posts above, with a message that says 'unable to connect'

Paolo Sandro@paolosandro· Jul 13

Third day Manchester is covered in smoke from the moor fires. I reckon this image would have made for a very fitting cover photo for the 'report' on the climate change advisory opinion by the three self-avowed 'leading legal academics' www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater...

photo of Manchester City Centre skyline, skyscrapers partially hid by smoke

Paolo Sandro@paolosandro· Jul 5

Mr Baxter wouldn't have it :D

Mr. Baxter
Share this specific contribution
On a point of Order. Is an hon. Member in Order who in criticising the Supreme Court of another country declares in effect that the Supreme Court—which is supposed to be completely impartial and is so very largely recognised as such in the United States—is in fact influenced in its judgment by the political opinions and backgrounds of its various members? First, I believe it to be false and secondly, I believe such a criticism levelled against the highest legal authority in the United States is something which should not be done.

Paolo Sandro@paolosandro· Jul 5

Parliament Bill House of Commons debate, 1948 (!!)

Mr. Asterley Jones
Share this specific contribution
The Senate and the House of Representatives are simply a non-sovereign Legislature, and the ultimate veto lies with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in the United States is technically a judicial body. In fact it is a political body and always has been a political body, as Roosevelt discovered. Indeed "packing" the Supreme Court has always been a favourite sport of the early years of any American president, and when the hon. Member for Queen's University says that the Supreme Court of the United States Toggle showing location of Column 113 decides these questions in line with the Constitution and interprets the Constitution, I would add that obviously it interprets the Constitution in accordance with its own social outlook, because its decisions are almost always made on certain lines which can be forecast ahead. It can always be foreseen, and this was particularly so in the days of Roosevelt, how the Supreme Court would divide, just as it can be foreseen how the House of Lords will divide.

Paolo Sandro@paolosandro· Jul 1

On my way to @icon-s.bsky.social in Dublin for our panel on the (fraught) relationship between soft law and the rule of law - should be an excellent discussion! Join us, if you aren't already on your way home 😉

12.34 · O'Connor · L3.03
Soft Law and the Rule of Law
Sebastian Lewis · Oana Stefan · Chiara Valentini · Aileen
McHarg · Vincenza Falletti · Paolo Sandro

Paolo Sandro@paolosandro· Jun 26

These were his exact words:

Further, Reed mentioned in 2026 that previous candidates for Supreme Court vacancies were asked, in their interview, whether “an overenthusiastic interpretation of the Human Rights Act” had led to a “damaged… relationship” between courts and the legislature. This is a loaded question. What is an “overenthusiastic interpretation” of the Act? Overenthusiastic by whose measure? Does it mean any approach which differs from Reed’s own (notably conservative) interpretation? Reed suggested that the obvious answer to his question was “yes”, and that anyone disagreeing would make Reed wonder “what planet… this person [had] been living on”. In response Lord Waldegrave confirmed: “for somebody living on that planet, they would be rather unlikely to get on to the supreme court?”. Reed’s answer was stark: “so long as I’m chairing the selection commission.”

Paolo Sandro@paolosandro· Jun 23

This should be fun!

cover of the Cambridge university book by Dyzenhaus 'the war against law: what's wrong with common good constitutionalism'

Paolo Sandro@paolosandro· Jun 23

Photo of the top of a plastic bottle with a blue tethered cap on it, as mandated by Article 6 of Directive (EU) 2019/904 – the Single-Use Plastics Directive. It came into effect post-Brexit, so the UK is not bound by it. Yet virtually all plastic bottles being sold in the UK conform with the directive. It is a perfect encapsulation of the way in which the 'taking back control' is just a slogan given economic realities, and that people who still repeat it 10 years after the colossal failure known as Brexit do so out of ideology.

Paolo Sandro@paolosandro· Jun 23

Wrote this analysis of the referendum ten years ago, and I'm not pleased to report that it was all too easy to see where it was all going verfassungsblog.de/sovereign-an...

Ultimately, UK citizens who voted Leave have voiced a sentiment of betrayal and grievance that is mounting everywhere in Europe. This sentiment cannot go unheard any further. Outside the UK, austerity driven-policies by Brussels have progressively worsened the living conditions of millions of people in the Eurozone. Hence, rather than exclusively blaming the disenfranchised for casting their vote, we should rather ask ourselves to what extent our political institutional arrangements are still meaningfully democratic – before it’s too late and we witness even that remaining thin, formal democratic layer folding upon itself and unleash an old evil the European project’s pragmatic utopia appeared to have defeated.

Paolo Sandro@paolosandro· Jun 10

Black and white Photo of the GOAT, Hans Kelsen

Paolo Sandro@paolosandro· Jun 7

Finally www.82-0.com/share?id=lNQ...

Paolo Sandro@paolosandro· Jun 5

Got to experience presenting my book to a lovely audience in the Amphitheatre George Lefebvre, where in 1906 Marie Curie delivered her first course as the first female professor at Sorbonne. You can truly feel history in there

Picture of wooden lecture theatre, rows of benches all the way up. Beautiful ceiling with colorful rectangles

Paolo Sandro@paolosandro· Jun 5

I dare to say even @dieworkwear.bsky.social would be happy with this combo

Picture of blue and red tie on a white striped shirt, with blue corduroy jacket on top

Paolo Sandro@paolosandro· Jun 2

The Reed/Sales Supreme Court, in one meme:

drake online bling meme. Top text: overruling Corbett v Corbett; lower text: overruling Cheshire West

Paolo Sandro@paolosandro· May 28

I have thoughts

“During the Q&As over the course of the week, people would ask things like why the Supreme Court was blocking Scotland’s right to independence. You explain to them: do you agree the Supreme Court’s job is to apply the law? ‘Yes’. Do you know that the law governing the powers of the Scottish Parliament is set out in an Act of Parliament? ‘Yes’. So do you think it’s the Supreme Court’s duty to implement what the Act says? ‘Yes’. And then you tell them what the Act says, and they come away understanding why we decided the case the way we did.”

Paolo Sandro@paolosandro· May 26

I do not think that there can be any neat separation between the 'knowledge-production' game and the 'power game'. Anything we do in the K-P game influences the world. Something as 'little' as including, or excluding, a certain topic from our syllabi can have consequences. Knowledge *is* power. /2

The Power Game

The original sin of the American legal academy is its dubious relationships with power. The knowledge-production game I describe is not about cultivating power at all. It’s not even about influencing the world or making it a better place. All we do is produce and preserve knowledge for its own sake.

Paolo Sandro@paolosandro· May 25

This will go down well with common good™ constitutionalists in the US and the UK, as well as Policy Exchange types advocating for ECHR withdrawal

The supreme value of human rights

54. The Church gratefully acknowledges that “the movement toward the identification and proclamation of human rights is one of the most significant attempts to respond effectively to the inescapable demands of human dignity.” [64] In this regard, Saint John Paul II stated that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed by the United Nations on 10 December 1948, remains one of the highest expressions of the human conscience of our time. [65] It is “a milestone on the long and difficult path of the human race.” [66] For this reason, from the Christian perspective, human rights are not an external addition to the person, but an expression of intrinsic human dignity, which the international community is called to protect and promote.

55. Human rights are inviolable, since they are “inherent in the human person and in human dignity.” [67] Consequently, they are universal and inalienable. [68] Precisely because they are grounded in the common dignity of every man and woman, they have practical consequences and legal effects, for “it would be vain to proclaim human rights if, at the same time, everything were not done to ensure the duty of respecting them, respect by all, in all places and for all.” [69] Among these rights, the first is the right to life, from conception to its natural end, [70] withou

Paolo Sandro@paolosandro· May 22

Four years after its publication I'm still asked to present my book to new audiences, and I like to think that it an acknowledgement of the 10+ years of intellectual sweat and tears that have gone into it (including all 1638 references, which were all checked one by one ;))! See you in Paris!

poster of presentation of my book 'the making of constitutional democracy' (Hart 2022) in Sorbonne in Paris, on the 4th of June at 6pm

Paolo Sandro@paolosandro· May 22

Why I am not surprised in the slightest about Joshua Rozenberg jumping on the FWS/Foran bandwagon?

year has passed since the UK Supreme Court decided that when parliament used the terms “man” and “woman” in the Equality Act 2010 it was referring to biological sex, not acquired gender. That seemed clear enough, but some academics appear not to have understood it.

How can that be? And will things be any clearer next month when the government publishes the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s long-awaited code of practice on services, public functions and associations?

Paolo Sandro@paolosandro· May 19

I mean. From his wiki page:

From 2014 to 2018, Lamberts was the Vice-Chancellor of the University of York.[10] Since becoming a Vice-Chancellor, a chief executive position within university, Lamberts has had less time to carry out research.[11]

The university considered outsourcing English-language teaching of international students to INTO University Partnerships. The plans to privatise were criticised by the York branch of the University and College Union (UCU), and Lamberts subsequently announced that the partnership had been abandoned.[12][13]

In 2014, 69 universities in the UK were affected by strikes over proposed changes to pension schemes after a University and College Union (UCU) ballot; the University of York threatened to deduct 100% of striking staff's pay and was prompted to review the decision after a petition and intervention from UCU.[14] During the 2016/17 financial year he claimed £20,743 on expenses in his role as Vice-Chancellor; this was second highest amongst Russell Group VCs, and more than double the average.[15] Student newspaper York Vision reported that along with Deputy Vice-Chancellor Saul Tendler he accounted for 65% of the executive board's £58,000 spending on domestic and international flights.[16] Student news site The Sheffield Tab filed a freedom of information request and revealed that Lamberts spent nearly £11,000 on air travel in 2016/17. The UCU described it as an "embarrassment for the university sector".[17][18]

Paolo Sandro@paolosandro· May 19

As usual, the @icon-s.bsky.social conference programme is out and it is...unwieldy! Lots of great panels. So I'll highlight ours: if you're interested in soft law both practically and theoretically, we have put together a fantastic lineup (me excluded ;)) for you! 1st of July, 2pm, panel 12.34

If you are in Dublin for the 2026 ICON·S conference, do come along to our panel with Paolo Sandro (Leeds Law School), Oana Stefan (King's College London), Chiara Valentini (Bologna), Aileen McHarg (Durham) and Vincenza Falletti (IBEI).

The panel is titled "Soft Law and the Rule of Law". It will take place on Wednesday, 1 July, 2-3.30pm. It would be great to see you!

Panel 12.34: Soft Law and the Rule of Law

- Prof. Chiara Valentini (Bologna): "Soft Law, Courts and the Rule of Law"
- Prof. Aileen McHarg (Durham): "Constitutional Soft Law and the Rule of Law in the United Kingdom"
- Dr Vincenza Falletti (IBEI): "Scientific Authority through Soft Law: Rule-of-Law Implications in EU Governance"
- Dr Paolo Sandro (Leeds): "Soft Law, Freedom, and Accountability: When Less is Not Necessarily More"
- Prof. Oana Stefan (KCL): Discussant
- Dr Sebastian Lewis (Surrey): Chair

Panel Description:

Soft law refers to agreements, guidelines, conventions, and other policy instruments that are formally non-binding yet intended to guide conduct. Its expansion across domestic systems and the EU has been described as nothing short of “spectacular,” and empirical evidence suggests that, in some contexts, soft law may outperform hard law as a regulatory tool. But this rise presents a fundamental challenge: can governance increasingly driven by non-binding norms remain faithful to the Rule of Law?

Three concerns stand out. First, although soft law is not legally binding, it often produces significant indirect legal effects, influencing interpretation, enforcement priorities, and administrative discretion. Second, soft law is typically adopted by the executive, or by bodies operating at arm’s length from it, with limited legislative scrutiny. It therefore risks circumventing ordinary channels of democratic accountability. Third, its legitimate use can shade into abuse. Addressees may struggle to distinguish between binding obligations and mere guidance, while executives may deploy soft law to expand their influence at the expense of other institutions.

These developments expose a structural tension between soft law and the Rule of Law, a principle traditionally framed around publicly promulgated, binding norms enacted through constitutionally authorised procedures. If regulatory power increasingly operates through non-binding instruments, the classic Rule of Law paradigm may require reconsideration. This panel explores whether soft law can be reconciled with Rule of Law values—or whether its unchecked proliferation risks hollowing them out from within.

Paolo Sandro@paolosandro· May 13

Glad I'm not the only one to think that the UKSC judgment in Dillon has put the UK in breach of its obligations under the Withdrawal Agreement. Remarkably, it has done so while arguing that this was necessitated by EU law itself.. What a legacy for the 'man who ended overreach'

This does not, however, have to be the end of the story. The UK Supreme Court is not the final arbiter over the UK’s treaty commitments. The Dillon judgment, in so traducing Article 2’s terms, breaches the UK’s commitments in the Withdrawal Agreement. Such breaches can be challenged by the European Commission in the deal’s Committee structures, and ultimately subject to arbitration.

Paolo Sandro@paolosandro· May 9

And it's immediately Thoburn

Photo of plaque in a coffee shop saying 'weights and measures act'

Paolo Sandro@paolosandro· May 5

Update: one of the new requirements is that you must prove that the parent(s) didn't acquire any nationality other than Italian, in order to automatically transmit it to your children. So you need a 'negative' document from your country of residence. Cost of said document on the UKVI website:

cost of confirmation of non-acquisition of British citizenship: £489

Paolo Sandro@paolosandro· Apr 22

Latest batch

Photo of two recent books on Wittgenstein, by Anthony Gottlieb and Marjorie Perloff, side by side

Paolo Sandro@paolosandro· Apr 22

No caption

I'm selling all 70 of my buy-to-lets - and buying a boat: Former Royal Navy man says landlords are being forced out of the rental market

Paolo Sandro@paolosandro· Apr 21