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)

This is the first book on proportionality in Latin American constitutional law. Leading scholars in the region explore how proportionality analysis has become a key part of the constitutional law of a region where, almost paradoxically, constitutions with clear transformative intentions coexist with the highest indicators of social inequality in the world. In this book, scholars, practitioners and students will find a fascinating account of how proportionality has been a central concept in Latin America's constitutional struggles to curtail excessive uses of state power. The book illustrates how, more recently, proportionality has played an important role in national processes of constitutionalization and transitional justice, and how its current uses in the domain of social rights endow it with a distinctive meaning and role in regional constitutionalism. This pioneering book opens up the space for a much needed global conversation on how Latin America has decisively contributed to comparative constitutional law.

International courts and tribunals are increasingly asked to pass judgment on matters that are traditionally considered to fall within the domestic jurisdiction of States. Especially in the fields of human rights, investment, and trade law, international adjudicators commonly evaluate decisions of national authorities that have been made in the course of democratic procedures and public deliberation. A controversial question is whether international adjudicators should review such decisions de novo or show deference to domestic authorities. This book investigates how various international courts and tribunals have responded to this question. In addition to a comparative analysis, the book provides a normative argument, discussing whether different forms of deference are justified in international adjudication. It proposes a distinction between epistemic deference, which is based on the superior capacity of domestic authorities to make factual and technical assessments, and constitutional deference, which is based on the democratic legitimacy of domestic decision-making. The book concludes that epistemic deference is a prudent acknowledgement of the limited expertise of international adjudicators, whereas the case for constitutional deference depends on the relative power of the reviewing court vis-à-vis the domestic legal order.

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.

This book examines different legal systems and analyses how the judge in each of them performs a meaningful review of the proportional use of discretionary powers by public bodies. Although the proportionality test is not equally deep-rooted in the literature and case-law of France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, this principle has assumed an increasing importance partly due to the influence of the European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights. In the United States, different standards of judicial review are applied to review ‘arbitrary and capricious’ agency discretion. However, do US judges achieve a similar result to the proportionality or reasonableness test? Drawing together a selection of key experts in the field, this book analyses the principle of proportionality in the judicial review of administrative decisions from different perspectives. The principle is first examined in the context of recent developments in the literature and case-law, including the inevitable EU influence, then light shall be shed on the meaning of this principle in the specific case-law of the European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights. Finally, the authors go on to explore the ways in which US judges consciously ‘sanction’ the ‘disproportionate’ and/or unreasonable’ use of agency discretion. In the legal systems where the proportionality test plays a very limited role, Ranchordás and de Waard also try to clarify why this is the case and look at what alternative solutions have been found. This book will be of great interest to scholars of public and administrative law, and EU law.

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

This book discusses how international judicial authority is established and managed in key fields of international economic law. Its unique legal-centric approach sees the consolidation of judicial authority as a universal trend and its broad international appeal makes it essential reading for researchers, practitioners and students alike.

In this book, Alec Stone Sweet and Jud Mathews focus on the law and politics of rights protection in democracies, and in human rights regimes in Europe, the Americas, and Africa. After introducing the basic features of modern constitutions, with their emphasis on rights and judicial review, the authors present a theory of proportionality that explains why constitutional judges embraced it. Proportionality analysis is a highly intrusive mode of judicial supervision: it permits state officials to limit rights, but only when necessary to achieve a sufficiently important public interest. Since the 1950s, virtually every powerful domestic and international court has adopted proportionality analysis as the central method for protecting rights. In doing so, judges positioned themselves to review all important legislative and administrative decisions, and to invalidate them as unconstitutional when such policies fail the proportionality test. The result has been a massive - and global - transformation of law and politics. The book explicates the concepts of 'trusteeship', the 'system of constitutional justice', the 'effectiveness' of rights adjudication, and the 'zone of proportionality'. A wide range of case studies analyse: how proportionality has spread, and variation in how it is deployed; the extent to which the U.S. Supreme Court has evolved and resisted similar doctrines; the role of proportionality in building ongoing 'constitutional dialogues' with the other branches of government; and the importance of the principle to the courts of regional human rights regimes. While there is variance in the intensity of proportionality-based dialogues, such interactions are today at the very heart of governance in the modern constitutional state and beyond.

This book features eleven contributions on the fundamental principles of EEA law: legislative and judicial homogeneity, reciprocity, prosperity, priority, authority, loyalty, proportionality, equality, liability and sovereignty. Written by EFTA Court and national judges, high EFTA officials, private practitioners and scholars, it raises awareness of EEA law and provides insights for EEA and EU law practitioners and researchers. It focuses on the principles at the core of EEA law, some of which are common to EU and EEA law, while others have a specific place in EEA law and some ensure consistency between the EEA Agreement and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It is the only book to focus on the fundamental principles of EEA law.

The EEA Agreement extends the four freedoms (persons, goods, services and capital) to Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. It provides for equal conditions of competition and abolishes discrimination on grounds of nationality. The EFTA Court, celebrating its 30th anniversary in 2024, has jurisdiction over parties to the Agreement. This jurisdiction corresponds to that of the Court of Justice of the European Union over EU Member States in matters of EEA law. This collection of essays, written by members of the Court and external experts, reviews the successes and shortcomings of the Court, its interface with EU law, and its future development.