HOME > Detail View

Detail View

Proportionality and judicial activism : fundamental rights adjudication in Canada, Germany and South Africa

Proportionality and judicial activism : fundamental rights adjudication in Canada, Germany and South Africa (Loan 2 times)

Material type
단행본
Personal Author
Petersen, Niels.
Title Statement
Proportionality and judicial activism : fundamental rights adjudication in Canada, Germany and South Africa / Niels Petersen.
Publication, Distribution, etc
Cambridge, United Kingdom ;   New York, NY, USA :   Cambridge University Press,   2017   (2018 printing).  
Physical Medium
x, 249 p. ; 23 cm.
ISBN
9781107177987 (hardback) 9781316630822 (pbk.)
요약
"The principle of proportionality is currently one of the most discussed topics in the field of comparative constitutional law. Many critics claim that courts use the proportionality test as an instrument of judicial self-empowerment. Proportionality and Judicial Activism tests this hypothesis empirically; it systematically and comparatively analyses the fundamental rights jurisprudence of the Canadian Supreme Court, the German Federal Constitutional Court and the South African Constitutional Court. The book shows that the proportionality test does give judges a considerable amount of discretion. However, this analytical openness does not necessarily lead to judicial activism. Instead, judges are faced with significant institutional constraints, as a result of which all three examined courts refrain from using proportionality for purposes of judicial activism"--
General Note
Based on author's thesis (Habilitation - Universität, Bonn, 2012) issued under title: Verhältnismässigkeit als Rationalitätskontrolle : eine rechtsempirische Studie verfassungsrechtlicher Rechtsprechung zu den Freiheitsgrundrechten.  
Content Notes
Machine generated contents note: Introduction; 1. Judicial review and the correction of political market failures; 2. The normative debate on balancing; 3. Balancing and judicial legitimacy; 4. Proportionality as a doctrinal construction; 5. The avoidance of balancing; 6. Rationalising balancing; Conclusion: proportionality and the review of legislative rationality.
Bibliography, Etc. Note
Includes bibliographical references (p. 211-240) and index.
Subject Added Entry-Topical Term
Political questions and judicial power --Canada. Political questions and judicial power --Germany. Political questions and judicial power --South Africa. Proportionality in law --Canada. Proportionality in law --Germany. Proportionality in law --South Africa. Court of last resort --Canada. Court of last resort --Germany. Court of last resort --South Africa.
000 00000cam u2200205 a 4500
001 000045982145
005 20190430112558
008 190429s2017 enk b 001 0 eng
010 ▼a 2016058544
020 ▼a 9781107177987 (hardback)
020 ▼a 9781316630822 (pbk.)
035 ▼a (KERIS)REF000018246278
040 ▼a DLC ▼b eng ▼c DLC ▼e rda ▼d 211009
043 ▼a n-cn--- ▼a e-gx--- ▼a f-sa---
050 0 0 ▼a K3367 ▼b .P48 2017
082 0 0 ▼a 342.08/5 ▼2 23
084 ▼a 342.085 ▼2 DDCK
090 ▼a 342.085 ▼b P484p
100 1 ▼a Petersen, Niels.
245 1 0 ▼a Proportionality and judicial activism : ▼b fundamental rights adjudication in Canada, Germany and South Africa / ▼c Niels Petersen.
260 ▼a Cambridge, United Kingdom ; ▼a New York, NY, USA : ▼b Cambridge University Press, ▼c 2017 ▼g (2018 printing).
300 ▼a x, 249 p. ; ▼c 23 cm.
500 ▼a Based on author's thesis (Habilitation - Universität, Bonn, 2012) issued under title: Verhältnismässigkeit als Rationalitätskontrolle : eine rechtsempirische Studie verfassungsrechtlicher Rechtsprechung zu den Freiheitsgrundrechten.
504 ▼a Includes bibliographical references (p. 211-240) and index.
505 8 ▼a Machine generated contents note: Introduction; 1. Judicial review and the correction of political market failures; 2. The normative debate on balancing; 3. Balancing and judicial legitimacy; 4. Proportionality as a doctrinal construction; 5. The avoidance of balancing; 6. Rationalising balancing; Conclusion: proportionality and the review of legislative rationality.
520 ▼a "The principle of proportionality is currently one of the most discussed topics in the field of comparative constitutional law. Many critics claim that courts use the proportionality test as an instrument of judicial self-empowerment. Proportionality and Judicial Activism tests this hypothesis empirically; it systematically and comparatively analyses the fundamental rights jurisprudence of the Canadian Supreme Court, the German Federal Constitutional Court and the South African Constitutional Court. The book shows that the proportionality test does give judges a considerable amount of discretion. However, this analytical openness does not necessarily lead to judicial activism. Instead, judges are faced with significant institutional constraints, as a result of which all three examined courts refrain from using proportionality for purposes of judicial activism"-- ▼c Provided by publisher.
650 0 ▼a Political questions and judicial power ▼z Canada.
650 0 ▼a Political questions and judicial power ▼z Germany.
650 0 ▼a Political questions and judicial power ▼z South Africa.
650 0 ▼a Proportionality in law ▼z Canada.
650 0 ▼a Proportionality in law ▼z Germany.
650 0 ▼a Proportionality in law ▼z South Africa.
650 0 ▼a Court of last resort ▼z Canada.
650 0 ▼a Court of last resort ▼z Germany.
650 0 ▼a Court of last resort ▼z South Africa.
945 ▼a KLPA

Holdings Information

No. Location Call Number Accession No. Availability Due Date Make a Reservation Service
No. 1 Location Main Library/Law Library(Books/B1)/ Call Number 342.085 P484p Accession No. 111808662 Availability Available Due Date Make a Reservation Service B M

Contents information

Table of Contents

Machine generated contents note: Introduction; 1. Judicial review and the correction of political market failures; 2. The normative debate on balancing; 3. Balancing and judicial legitimacy; 4. Proportionality as a doctrinal construction; 5. The avoidance of balancing; 6. Rationalising balancing; Conclusion: proportionality and the review of legislative rationality.

New Arrivals Books in Related Fields

개인정보전문가협회 (2022)
한국. 헌법재판소 (2021)
김민호 (2022)
김철용 (2022)
이동흡 (2022)