Proportionality Analysis And Models Of Judicial Review

Proportionality analysis describes a particular legal technique of resolving conflicts between human rights or constitutional rights and public interests through a process of balancing. However, as a general tendency, the current vivid academic debate on proportionality pays insufficient attention to the institutional context - the question of judicial review. Based on the premise that proportionality analysis is a permissible approach to resolve conflicts between rights and other interests, this book lays out a strategy for courts and tribunals to deal with the challenge of using proportionality analysis in an adequate manner, taking into account their situation and context of judicial review. For this purpose, the book develops the concept of models of judicial review in a first theoretical chapter. These models are then applied to six comparative case studies in German and US constitutional law, the law of the European Convention on Human Rights, European Union law, World Trade Organization law, and international investment law. (Series: European Administrative Law - Vol. 8)

A comparative and empirical analysis of proportionality in the case law of six constitutional and supreme courts.

This book presents important new scholarship by leading figures in constitutional law on new challenges for proportionality doctrine.

This book uses empirical analysis to show that courts refrain from using the proportionality test as a means of judicial activism.

As constitutional law globalizes, the quest for a common grammar or 'generic constitutional law' becomes more pressing. Proportionality is one of the most prominent and controversial components of the modern, global constitutional discourse. In view of the alarming tension between the triumphant success of proportionality and the severity of the criticism directed towards it, this book offers an in-depth analysis of the critics of proportionality and demonstrates that their objections against the proportionality test are not convincing. It clarifies and further develops the current theories of proportionality and balancing. Building upon on Robert Alexy's predominant principles theory, the book suggests several modifications to this theory. Drawing examples from the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the European Court of Justice, and various national constitutional courts it illustrates the argument in favour of proportionality and demonstrates its relevance for deciding concrete cases.

A rigorous analysis of the relationship between proportionality and deference under the Human Rights Act.

Should courts be able to scrutinise primary legislation for its compatibility with human rights? Focusing on the value of the separation of powers, Dimitrios Kyritsis offers an innovative discussion of the role of constitutional courts and the scope of judicial review, and a normative theory of the constitutional review of legislative action.

This translation into English of the leading German-language work on the Federal Constitutional Court gives an overview of the court's history and role as one of the most influential constitutional courts in recent years. The book consists of four extended, free-standing essays written by each of the authors. The essays cover the historical development and political context of the Court; the Court and the constitution; the Court's approach to judicial reasoning; and the Court in contemporary constitutional theory.