|
Showing 1 - 4 of
4 matches in All Departments
Although the most important constitutional doctrine worldwide, a
thorough cultural and historical examination of proportionality has
not taken place until now. This comparison of proportionality with
its counterpart in American constitutional law - balancing - shows
how culture and history can create deep differences in seemingly
similar doctrines. Owing to its historical origin in Germany,
proportionality carries to this day a pro-rights association, while
the opposite is the case for balancing. In addition, European legal
and political culture has shaped proportionality as intrinsic to
the state's role in realizing shared values, while in the United
States a suspicion-based legal and political culture has shaped
balancing in more pragmatic and instrumental terms. Although many
argue that the USA should converge on proportionality, the book
shows that a complex web of cultural associations make it an
unlikely prospect.
In Towering Judges: A Comparative Study of Constitutional Judges,
Rehan Abeyratne and Iddo Porat lead an exploration of a new topic
in comparative constitutional law: towering judges. The volume
examines the work of nineteen judges from fourteen jurisdictions,
each of whom stood out individually among their fellow judges and
had a unique impact on the trajectory of constitutional law. The
chapters ask: what makes a towering judge; what are the background
conditions that foster or deter the rise of towering judges; are
towering judges, on balance, positive or detrimental for
constitutional systems; how do towering judges differ from one
jurisdiction to another; how do political and historical
developments relate to this phenomenon; and how does all of this
fit within global constitutionalism? The answers to these questions
offer important insight into how these judges were able to shine to
an uncommon degree in a profession where individualism is not
always looked on favourably.
In Towering Judges: A Comparative Study of Constitutional Judges,
Rehan Abeyratne and Iddo Porat lead an exploration of a new topic
in comparative constitutional law: towering judges. The volume
examines the work of nineteen judges from fourteen jurisdictions,
each of whom stood out individually among their fellow judges and
had a unique impact on the trajectory of constitutional law. The
chapters ask: what makes a towering judge; what are the background
conditions that foster or deter the rise of towering judges; are
towering judges, on balance, positive or detrimental for
constitutional systems; how do towering judges differ from one
jurisdiction to another; how do political and historical
developments relate to this phenomenon; and how does all of this
fit within global constitutionalism? The answers to these questions
offer important insight into how these judges were able to shine to
an uncommon degree in a profession where individualism is not
always looked on favourably.
Although the most important constitutional doctrine worldwide, a
thorough cultural and historical examination of proportionality has
not taken place until now. This comparison of proportionality with
its counterpart in American constitutional law - balancing - shows
how culture and history can create deep differences in seemingly
similar doctrines. Owing to its historical origin in Germany,
proportionality carries to this day a pro-rights association, while
the opposite is the case for balancing. In addition, European legal
and political culture has shaped proportionality as intrinsic to
the state's role in realizing shared values, while in the United
States a suspicion-based legal and political culture has shaped
balancing in more pragmatic and instrumental terms. Although many
argue that the USA should converge on proportionality, the book
shows that a complex web of cultural associations make it an
unlikely prospect.
|
|