As constitutional law globalizes, the quest for a common grammar or 'generic constitutional law' becomes more pressing. Proportionality is one of the most prominent and controversial components of the modern, global constitutional discourse. In view of the alarming tension between the triumphant success of proportionality and the severity of the criticism directed towards it, this book offers an in-depth analysis of the critics of proportionality and demonstrates that their objections against the proportionality test are not convincing. It clarifies and further develops the current theories of proportionality and balancing. Building upon on Robert Alexy's predominant principles theory, the book suggests several modifications to this theory. Drawing examples from the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the European Court of Justice, and various national constitutional courts it illustrates the argument in favour of proportionality and demonstrates its relevance for deciding concrete cases.

This book addresses the principle of proportionality, which is currently one of the most important instruments of judicial review, from both analytical and theory of law perspectives. As such, the analysis provided is far more comprehensive and can be applied to all areas of law, not just constitutional law. On the one hand, the volume offers a broad perspective on several aspects related to proportionality, such as its structure, the balancing methodology and the distinction between rules and principles. On the other, it provides an innovative, normativist and analytical approach to proportionality, helping readers understand its structure and behaviour.

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.

Proportionality is one of the most important principles in constitutional law, relevant throughout the law and in jurisdictions worldwide. Setting out the 'state of the art' in proportionality doctrine, this book combines theoretical reconstruction with case-law examples, defending and developing the dominant model of proportionality.

This book explores the implications of freedom as a non-domination-oriented view for understanding EU security regulation and its constitutional implications. At a time when the European borders are under pressure and with the refugee and migration crisis, which escalated in 2015, the idea of exploring a constitutional theory for the 'Area of Freedom, Security and Justice' (AFSJ) might seem to be a utopian project. This appears especially true in the light of the increased threat of terrorism in Europe (and on a global scale) and where the expanding EU security agenda is often advanced through the administrative law path, in contrast to the constitutional trajectory. Add to this the prolonged financial crisis, which continues to cast a long shadow on the future development of EU integration, and which suggests that Europe needs to 're-invent itself' beyond the sphere of economics. Therefore, it is precisely because of the current uncertainties regarding the progress of the EU and the constitutional law project that a constitutional take on the AFSJ is of particular importance. The book investigates the meaning of non-domination and the idea of justice and justification in the area of EU security regulation. In doing so, it focuses on the development of an AFSJ, what it means, and why it represents a fascinating example of contemporary constitutional law with interacting layers of security regulation, human rights law and transnational legal theory at its core.

This volume brings together leading scholars of comparative constitutional law to reflect on current challenges to liberal constitutionalism and democratic governance, as inspired by the work of Professor Wojciech Sadurski.

Leading constitutional theorists debate the merits of proportionality, the nature of rights, the practice of judicial review, and moral and legal reasoning.

Constitutionalism Justified analyzes leading Frankfurt School theorist Rainer Forst's theory of a basic right to justification, unique in combining insights from philosophy, constitutionalism, and legal theory. Drawing upon Kant's critical philosophy and Habermas's discourse theory, he has developed fresh perspectives on core topics like the concept of justice, the relation between modernity and emancipation, and human rights. The contributors to this volume explore Forst's work from three different perspectives: philosophy, legal philosophy, and constitutional theory. The first part of this volume addresses the philosophical argument of the basic right to justification, including the influence of Kantian thought on this right, the deontological versus teleological fundamentals, the tension between moral pluralism and universalism, and the relation of the right to justification with social and distributive justice. The second part covers how the right to justification is embedded in constitutional and legal frameworks. It explores the implications that Forst's right to justification has for conceptualizing constitutional democracy and its foundations, and how the moral right to justification may translate into particular practices of justification that are constrained by a legal framework. This includes discussion of the value of constitutionalism in general, of the relation between the formal structure of democracy and substantive justice, of the inclusion of outsiders to the constitutional setting, and of proportionality analysis and judicial review as forms of justification. The book concludes with Rainer Forst's reply to his interlocutors, making the book a valuable source for future research.

This book offers a comprehensive critique of the principle of proportionality and balancing as applied to human and constitutional rights.

For a judiciary in a democracy, dispensing justice is not only about doing justice, but also about showing that justice is being done; it is about giving reasons and creating a "culture of justification". The question becomes how to nurture such a culture. A number of liberal democratic jurisdictions have answered this question in part with the adoption of the multi-step method of evaluating the constitutionality of legislative infringements on fundamental rights widely known as Proportionality Analysis. Under Proportionality Analysis courts must engage in a structured process of reasoning. This book deals with Gender Justice and Proportionality Analysis in India. The author argues that the Supreme Court of India should consider adopting Proportionality Analysis for the adjudication of the fundamental right to sex equality in Indian courts. The book includes an analysis of Canadian and South African Proportionality Analysis and makes some suggestions on how an Indian Proportionality Analysis could be generated using this comparative investigation. Additionally, the book proposes ways of applying the effects of socio-political context on doctrine, as well as doctrine’s interpretive impact on adjudicated outcomes for gender, thus making a contribution to feminist jurisprudence. Finally, the author analyses Indian gender equality jurisprudence, demonstrating the inadequacies of the current doctrinal framework for achieving the goal of substantive gender equality and suggesting ways in which an Indian Proportionality Analysis might be fashioned to address these inadequacies. A novel examination of the gender situation in India in comparative perspective, this book will be of interest to academics in the field of Gender Studies, Asian and Comparative Law and South Asian studies.