Implied constitutional principles form part of the landscape of the development of fundamental rights in common law jurisdictions, affecting issues ranging from the remuneration of judges to the appropriation of property by the state. Principled Reasoning in Human Rights Adjudication offers thematic analysis of the use of the implied constitutional principles of the rule of law and separation of powers in human rights cases. The book examines the functions played by those principles in rights adjudication in Australia, Canada, the Commonwealth Caribbean, and the United Kingdom. It argues that a complete understanding of implied constitutional principles requires thoroughgoing analysis of the sources and methods of implication and of the specific roles played by such principles in the adjudicative process. By disaggregating particular functions and placing those functions within their respective institutional contexts, this book develops an understanding of the features of cases in which implied constitutional principles are invoked and the work done by those principles.
Author: Amnon Lev
Publisher: Bloomsbury Publishing
Release Date: 2017-08-31
A significant part of the world's population lives under some sort of federal arrangement. And yet, the concepts of federalism and federation remain under-theorised. Federalist theorists have, for the most part, defined their object by opposition to the unitary state. As a result, they have not developed public law theories that capture the specificity of this type of polity. Bringing together contributions from leading public law theorists and intellectual historians, this volume explores the foundations of federalism. It develops novel perspectives on the core problems of traditional federalist theory and charts new departures in federalist theory and federal power-sharing. At a time when we look for more inclusive ways of ordering public life, the volume fills an urgent theoretical and political need.
It is commonly asserted that bills of rights have had a 'righting' effect on the principles of judicial review of administrative action and have been a key driver of the modern expansion in judicial oversight of the executive arm of government. A number of commentators have pointed to Australian administrative law as evidence for this 'righting' hypothesis. They have suggested that the fact that Australia is an outlier among common law jurisdictions in having neither a statutory nor a constitutional framework to expressly protect human rights explains why Australia alone continues to take an apparently 'formalist', 'legalist' and 'conservative' approach to administrative law. Other commentators and judges, including a number in Canada, have argued the opposite: that bills of rights have the effect of stifling the development of the common law. However, for the most part, all these claims remain just that – there has been limited detailed analysis of the issue, and no detailed comparative analysis of the veracity of the claims. This book analyses in detail the interaction between administrative and human rights law in Australia and Canada, arguing that both jurisdictions have reached remarkably similar positions regarding the balance between judicial and executive power, and between broader fundamental principles including the rule of law, parliamentary sovereignty and the separation of powers. It will provide valuable reading for all those researching judicial review and human rights.
Author: Francesco Palermo
Publisher: Bloomsbury Publishing
Release Date: 2017-10-05
This is the first comprehensive book that explores the subject of federalism from the perspective of comparative constitutional law, whilst simultaneously placing a strong emphasis on how federal systems work in practice. This focus is reflected in the book's two most innovative elements. First, it analyses from a comparative point of view how government levels exercise their powers and interact in several highly topical policy areas like social welfare, environmental protection or migrant integration. Second, the book incorporates case law boxes discussing seminal judgments from federal systems worldwide and thus demonstrates the practical impact of constitutional jurisprudence on policymakers and citizens alike. "This is simply the best analysis of contemporary federalism currently available. It is comprehensive in its coverage, thorough in its analysis, and persuasive in its conclusions. Every student of federalism, from novice to expert, will find benefit from this volume.†? Professor G Alan Tarr, Rutgers University "Wading through the thicket of the multiple forms that the federal idea has taken in the contemporary world, this remarkably comprehensive treatise backed by case law fills a long-awaited gap in the literature on comparative federalism. It combines a mastery of the literature on federal theory with a critical understanding of how it plays out in practice. Outstanding in the breadth of its scope, this magisterial survey will serve as a work of reference for generations of scholars who seek to understand how federalism works in developed as well as developing countries.†? Professor Balveer Arora, Jawaharlal Nehru University New Delhi "This book is an extraordinarily handy work of reference on the diverse federal-type systems of the world. It handles both shared principles and differences of perspective, structure or practice with confidence and ease. It will become a standard work for scholars and practitioners working in the field.†? Professor Cheryl Saunders, The University of Melbourne "This is a remarkable book – for its sheer breadth of scope, combining detail of practice with analysis of federal principles, and for its fresh look at federalism. With great erudition, drawing on world scholarship and the practice of federalism across the globe, Palermo and Kössler magnificently traverse from the ancient roots of federalism to the contemporary debates on ethno-cultural dimensions and participatory democracy. The book sets a new benchmark for the study of comparative federalism, providing new insights that are bound to influence practice in an era where federal arrangements are expected to deliver answers to key governance and societal challenges.†? Professor Nico Steytler, University of the Western Cape
Vigorous debate exists among constitutional scholars as to the appropriate 'modalities' of constitutional argument, and their relative weight. Many scholars, however, argue that one important modality of constitutional argument involves attention to underlying constitutional purposes or 'values'. In Australia, this kind of values-oriented approach has been advocated by leading constitutional scholars, and also finds support in the judgments of the High Court at various times, particularly during the Mason Court era. Much of the scholarly debate on constitutional values to date, however, focuses on whether the Court should in fact look to constitutional values in this way, not the kinds of values the Court should consider, given such an approach. This book responds to this gap in the existing scholarly literature, by inviting a range of leading Australian constitutional lawyers and scholars to address the relevance and scope of various substantive constitutional values, and how they might affect the Court's approach to constitutional interpretation in various contexts. It is essential reading for anyone seeking a deeper understanding of Australia's constitutional system.
The jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice generally demonstrates that no rule of international law can be interpreted and applied without regard to its innate values and the basic principles of human rights. Through its case-law the ICJ has made immense contributions to the development of human rights law, and in so doing continues to provide solutions to mounting international problems, such as terrorism and unilateral use of force. Part I of the book argues that the legislative spirit of contemporary international law lies in the doctrine of human rights and that the spirit of human rights doctrine lies in the principle of human dignity. Furthermore it argues that the processes of international legislation and international adjudication are inseparable, and that there is no norm of international law which does not intertwine the fundamental principle of human dignity with human rights doctrine. Hence human rights law is more a school of law than merely a normative branch of international law, and the ICJ's willingness to engage in the development of human rights law depends upon which judicial ideology its judges subscribe to.In order to evaluate how this human rights spirit is manifested, or occasionally not manifested, through the vast jurisprudence of the ICJ, Parts II and III critically examine the Court's principal contentious and advisory cases in which it has treated human rights questions. The legal reasoning of the Court and the opinions appended to its decisions by its individual judges are analysed in light of the principle of human dignity and the doctrine of human rights.
Author: Robert Alexy
Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA
Release Date: 2009-12-10
This classic work of constitutional theory analyzes the general structure of constitutional rights and their judicial application. It deals with a wide range of problems common to all systems of constitutional rights review - from balancing rights to deciding the limits of their scope.
Author: Mark Elliott
Publisher: Bloomsbury Publishing
Release Date: 2018-04-19
This major collection contains selected papers from the second Public Law Conference, an international conference hosted by the University of Cambridge in September 2016. The collection includes contributions by leading academics and judges from across the common law world, including senior judges from Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK. The contributions engage with the theme of unity (and disunity) from a number of perspectives, offering a rich panoply of insights into public law which significantly carry forward public law thinking across common law jurisdictions, setting the agenda for future research and legal development. Part 1 of the volume contains chapters which offer doctrinal and theoretical perspectives. Some chapters seek to articulate a unifying framework for understanding public law, while others seek to demonstrate the plurality of public law through the method of legal taxonomy. A number of chapters analyse whether different fields such as human rights and administrative law are merging, with others considering specific unifying themes or concepts in public law. The chapters in Part 2 offer comparative perspectives, charting and analysing convergence and divergence across common law systems. Specific topics include standing, proportionality, human rights, remedies, use of foreign precedents, legal transplants, and disunity and unity among subnational jurisdictions. The collection will be of great interest to those working in public law.
Author: Matthew Groves
Publisher: Bloomsbury Publishing
Release Date: 2017-01-12
The recognition and enforcement of legitimate expectations by courts has been a striking feature of English law since R v North and East Devon Health Authority; ex parte Coughlan  3 QB 213. Although the substantive form of legitimate expectation adopted in Coughlan was quickly accepted by English courts and received a generally favourable response from public law scholars, the doctrine of that case has largely been rejected in other common law jurisdictions. The central principles of Coughlan have been rejected by courts in common law jurisdictions outside the UK for a range of reasons, such as incompatibility with local constitutional doctrine, or because they mark an undesirable drift towards merits review. The sceptical and critical reception to Coughlan outside England is a striking contrast to the reception the case received within the UK. This book provides a detailed scholarly analysis of these issues and considers the doctrine of legitimate expectations both in England and elsewhere in the common law world.
In 2007 the International Association of Constitutional Law established an Interest Group on 'The Use of Foreign Precedents by Constitutional Judges' to conduct a survey of the use of foreign precedents by Supreme and Constitutional Courts in deciding constitutional cases. Its purpose was to determine - through empirical analysis employing both quantitative and qualitative indicators - the extent to which foreign case law is cited. The survey aimed to test the reliability of studies describing and reporting instances of transjudicial communication between Courts. The research also provides useful insights into the extent to which a progressive constitutional convergence may be taking place between common law and civil law traditions. The present work includes studies by scholars from African, American, Asian, European, Latin American and Oceania countries, representing jurisdictions belonging to both common law and civil law traditions, and countries employing both centralised and decentralised systems of judicial review. The results, published here for the first time, give us the best evidence yet of the existence and limits of a transnational constitutional communication between courts.
The Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies provides a forum for the scrutiny of significant issues in EU Law, the law of the European Convention on Human Rights, and Comparative Law with a 'European' dimension, and particularly those issues which have come to the fore during the year preceding publication. The contributions appearing in the collection are commissioned by the Centre for European Legal Studies (CELS) Cambridge, a research centre in the Law Faculty of the University of Cambridge specialising in European legal issues. The papers presented are at the cutting edge of the fields which they address, and reflect the views of recognised experts drawn from the University world, legal practice, and the institutions of both the EU and its Member States. Inclusion of the comparative dimension brings a fresh perspective to the study of European law, and highlights the effects of globalisation of the law more generally, and the resulting cross fertilisation of norms and ideas that has occurred among previously sovereign and separate legal orders. The Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies is an invaluable resource for those wishing to keep pace with legal developments in the fast moving world of European integration. SUBSCRIPTION TO SERIES To place an annual online subscription or a print standing order through Hart Publishing please click on the link below. Please note that any customers who have a standing order for the printed volumes will now be entitled to free online access. www.hartjournals.co.uk/cyels/subs Editorial Advisory Board John Bell Alan Dashwood Simon Deakin David Feldman Richard Fentiman Angus Johnston John R Spencer Founding Editors Alan Dashwood Angela Ward
Author: Paul Roberts
Publisher: Bloomsbury Publishing
Release Date: 2007-11-14
Innovations in Evidence and Proof brings together fifteen leading scholars and experienced law teachers based in Australia, Canada, Northern Ireland, Scotland, South Africa, the USA and England and Wales to explore and debate the latest developments in Evidence and Proof scholarship. The essays comprising this volume range expansively over questions of disciplinary taxonomy, pedagogical method and computer-assisted learning, doctrinal analysis, fact-finding, techniques of adjudication, the ethics of cross-examination, the implications of behavioural science research for legal procedure, human rights, comparative law and international criminal trials. Communicating the breadth, dynamism and intensity of contemporary theoretical innovation in their diversity of subject-matter and approach, the authors nonetheless remain united by a common purpose: to indicate how the best interdisciplinary theorising and research might be integrated directly into degree-level Evidence teaching. Innovations in Evidence and Proof is published at an exciting time of theoretical renewal and increasing empirical sophistication in legal evidence, proof and procedure scholarship. This groundbreaking collection will be essential reading for Evidence teachers, and will also engage the interest and imagination of scholars, researchers and students investigating issues of evidence and proof in any legal system, municipal, transnational or global.
In the last fifteen years constitutional issues regarding the rights of gays, lesbians and same-sex couples have emerged on a global scale. The pace of recognition of their fundamental rights, both at judicial and legislative level, has dramatically increased across different jurisdictions, reflecting a growing consensus toward sexual orientation equality. This book considers a wide-range of decisions by constitutional and international courts, from the decriminalization of sexual acts to the recognition of same-sex marriage and parental rights for same-sex couples. It discusses analogies and differences in judicial arguments and rationales in such cases, focusing in particular on human dignity, privacy, liberty, equality and non-discrimination. It argues that courts operate as major exporters of models and principles and that judicial cross-fertilization also helps courts in increasing the acceptability of gays' and lesbians' rights in public opinions and politics. Courts discuss changes in the social perception of marriage and family at national and international levels and at the same time confirm and reinforce them, forging the legal debate over sexual orientation equality. Furthermore, by promoting the political reception of the achievements of foreign gay movements in their own jurisdictions, courts play an essential role in breaking the political stalemate.
Author: Neil MacCormick
Publisher: OUP Oxford
Release Date: 2005-07-28
When cases come before courts can we predict the outcome? Is legal reasoning rationally persuasive, working within a formal structure and using recognisable forms of arguments to produce predictable results? Or is legal reasoning mere ŕhetoric ́in the pejorative sense, open to use, and abuse, to achieve whatever ends unscrupulous politicians, lawyers and judges desire? If the latter what becomes of the supposed security of living under the rule of law? This book tackles these questions by presenting a theory of legal reasoning, developing the author's classic account given in Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory (OUP, 1978). It explains the essential role syllogism plays in reasoning used to apply the law, and the elements needed in addition to deductive reasoning to give a full explanation of how law is applied and decisions justified through the use of precedent, analogy and principle. The book highlights that problems of interpretation, classification and relevance will always arise when applying general legal standards to individual cases. In justifying their conclusions about such problems, judges need to be faithful to categorical legal reasons and yet fully sensitive to the particulars of the cases before them. How can this be achieved, and how should we evaluate the possible approaches judges could take to solving these problems? By addressing these issues the book asks questions at the heart of understanding the nature of law and the moral complexity of the rule of law.