How are rights and freedoms best protected? The American model of constitutional protection and judicial review has been adopted in a number of countries,most recently in the United Kingdom. Increasingly, rights are the province of the judiciary. But how much judicial review do we need? How do we resolve conflicts between liberty, equality, and democracy? What are group rights, and how strong is their claim to protection? What guidance can the decisions of the UN Human Rights Committee provide? These are some of the questions discussed in this collection of essays, which explores a range of contemporary issues in jurisdictions including the United States, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Contributors include Justice Antonin Scalia of the United States Supreme Court, Justice Ian Binnie of the Supreme Court of Canada, Justice Eddie Durie of the High Court of New Zealand; James Allan, Andrew Butler, Hilary Charlesworth, Scott Davidson, Elizabeth Evatt, Murray Hunt, Andrew Sharpe, and Jeremy Waldron.

Michael Taggart was the Alexander Turner Professor of Law in the University of Auckland, New Zealand until his retirement in 2008. He has worked extensively on public law, in particular administrative law, privatisation and the public/private law divide as well as on legal history. He has visited and taught at the Universities of Melbourne, New South Wales, Toronto, Cambridge, Paris II, Victoria at Wellington, Saskatchewan, Western Ontario, Queen's University at Kingston and Osgoode Hall Law School. This book of essays, dedicated to him by a group of his friends including academic colleagues, practitioners and judges, marks his enormous contribution to the common law.

To speak of human rights in the twenty-first century is to speak of proportionality. Proportionality has been received into the constitutional doctrine of courts in continental Europe, the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, Israel, South Africa, and the United States, as well as the jurisprudence of treaty-based legal systems such as the European Convention on Human Rights. Proportionality provides a common analytical framework for resolving the great moral and political questions confronting political communities. But behind the singular appeal to proportionality lurks a range of different understandings. This volume brings together many of the world's leading constitutional theorists - proponents and critics of proportionality - to debate the merits of proportionality, the nature of rights, the practice of judicial review, and moral and legal reasoning. Their essays provide important new perspectives on this leading doctrine in human rights law.

Originalism is a force to be reckoned with in constitutional interpretation. At one time a monolithic theory of constitutional interpretation, contemporary originalism has developed into a sophisticated family of theories about how to interpret and reason with a constitution. Contemporary originalists harness the resources of linguistic, moral, and political philosophy to propose methodologies for the interpretation of constitutional texts and provide reasons for fidelity to those texts. The essays in this volume, which includes contributions from the flag bearers of several competing schools of constitutional interpretation, provides an introduction to the development of originalist thought, showcases the great range of contemporary originalist constitutional scholarship, and situates competing schools of thought in dialogue with each other. They also make new contributions to the methodological and normative disputes between originalists and non-originalists, and among originalists themselves.

What does it mean to interpret the constitution? Does constitutional interpretation involve moral reasoning, or is legal reasoning something different? What does it mean to say that a limit on a right is justified? How does judicial review fit into a democratic constitutional order? Are attempts to limit its scope incoherent? How should a jurist with misgivings about the legitimacy of judicial review approach the task of judicial review? Is there a principled basis for judicial deference? Do constitutional rights depend on the protection of a written constitution, or is there a common law constitution that is enforceable by the courts? How are constitutional rights and unwritten constitutional principles to be reconciled? In this book, these and other questions are debated by some of the world's leading constitutional theorists and legal philosophers. Their essays are essential reading for anyone concerned with constitutional rights and legal theory.

To speak of human rights in the twenty-first century is to speak of proportionality. Proportionality has been received into the constitutional doctrine of courts in continental Europe, the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, Israel, South Africa, and the United States, as well as the jurisprudence of treaty-based legal systems such as the European Convention on Human Rights. Proportionality provides a common analytical framework for resolving the great moral and political questions confronting political communities. But behind the singular appeal to proportionality lurks a range of different understandings. This volume brings together many of the world's leading constitutional theorists - proponents and critics of proportionality - to debate the merits of proportionality, the nature of rights, the practice of judicial review, and moral and legal reasoning. Their essays provide important new perspectives on this leading doctrine in human rights law.

Originalism is a force to be reckoned with in constitutional interpretation. At one time a monolithic theory of constitutional interpretation, contemporary originalism has developed into a sophisticated family of theories about how to interpret and reason with a constitution. Contemporary originalists harness the resources of linguistic, moral, and political philosophy to propose methodologies for the interpretation of constitutional texts and provide reasons for fidelity to those texts. The essays in this volume, which includes contributions from the flag bearers of several competing schools of constitutional interpretation, provides an introduction to the development of originalist thought, showcases the great range of contemporary originalist constitutional scholarship, and situates competing schools of thought in dialogue with each other. They also make new contributions to the methodological and normative disputes between originalists and non-originalists, and among originalists themselves.

What does it mean to interpret the constitution? Does constitutional interpretation involve moral reasoning, or is legal reasoning something different? What does it mean to say that a limit on a right is justified? How does judicial review fit into a democratic constitutional order? Are attempts to limit its scope incoherent? How should a jurist with misgivings about the legitimacy of judicial review approach the task of judicial review? Is there a principled basis for judicial deference? Do constitutional rights depend on the protection of a written constitution, or is there a common law constitution that is enforceable by the courts? How are constitutional rights and unwritten constitutional principles to be reconciled? In this book, these and other questions are debated by some of the world's leading constitutional theorists and legal philosophers. Their essays are essential reading for anyone concerned with constitutional rights and legal theory.

The rise to prominence of administrative law in the second half of the twentieth century is often remarked upon as the greatest legal development of the period. In this process there has been considerable borrowing of ideas and learning from experiences elsewhere in the common law world. This volume brings together administrative law scholars and judges from around the globe to address important issues in the field and to honour the career of one of the leading administrative lawyers in the Anglo-Commonwealth world, Professor David Mullan.

Editors Grant Huscroft and Michael Taggart have identified the broad themes in Mullan's work - procedural fairness; scope of review and deference; the interrelationship of administrative law and human rights; the legitimacy of state regulation and tribunal adjudication; common law comparativism - and invited contributions on those themes from leading scholars in Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, South Africa, and the United States. A fitting tribute to a great scholar, Inside and Outside Canadian Administrative Law will prove fascinating to students, teachers, and practitioners of administrative law as well as policy makers and political scientists.

Contributors

Alfred C. Aman, Jr.Philip BrydenGeneviA]ve CartierHugh CorderPaul CraigRobin CreykeDavid DyzenhausJustice John M. EvansGrant HuscroftJudge K.J. Keith Denis LemieuxH. Wade MacLauchlan Chief Justice Beverley McLachlinJanet McLeanLorne SossinMichael TaggartMark D. Walters