Responsive Judicial Review
Oxford University Press (Verlag)
978-0-19-286577-9 (ISBN)
Democratic dysfunction can arise in both 'at risk' and well-functioning constitutional systems. It can threaten a system's responsiveness to both minority rights claims and majoritarian constitutional understandings. Responsive Judicial Review aims to counter this dysfunction using examples from both the global north and global south, including leading constitutional courts in the US, UK, Canada, India, South Africa, and Colombia, as well as select aspects of the constitutional jurisprudence of courts in Australia, Fiji, Hong Kong, and Korea.
In this book, Dixon argues that courts should adopt a sufficiently 'dialogic' approach to countering relevant democratic blockages and look for ways to increase the actual and perceived legitimacy of their decisions—through careful choices about their framing, and the timing and selection of cases. By orienting judicial choices about constitutional construction toward promoting democratic responsiveness, or toward countering forms of democratic monopoly, blind spots, and burdens of inertia, judicial review helps safeguard a constitutional system's responsiveness to democratic majority understandings. The idea of 'responsive' judicial review encourages courts to engage with their own distinct institutional position, and potential limits on their own capacity and legitimacy.
Dixon further explores the ways that this translates into the embracing of a 'weakened' approach to judicial finality, compared to the traditional US-model of judicial supremacy, as well as a nuanced approach to the making of judicial implications, a 'calibrated' approach to judicial scrutiny or judgments about proportionality, and an embrace of 'weak – strong' rather than wholly weak or strong judicial remedies. Not all courts will be equally well-placed to engage in review of this kind, or successful at doing so. For responsive judicial review to succeed, it must be sensitive to context-specific limitations of this kind. Nevertheless, the idea of responsive judicial review is explicitly normative and aspirational: it aims to provide a blueprint for how courts should think about the practice of judicial review as they strive to promote and protect democratic constitutional values.
Rosalind Dixon is a leading global expert on comparative constitutional law, design, and democracy. She is Professor of Law and Director of the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law at UNSW Sydney, and a former assistant professor at the University of Chicago Law School, visiting professor at Columbia Law School, Harvard Law School, and the National University of Singapore. She is also immediate past co-president of the International Society of Public Law, and a member of the Australian Academy of Law and Academy of Arts and Social Sciences.
1: Introduction
2: Constitutions and Constructional Choice
3: Defining Democracy and Democratic Dysfunction
4: The Scope and Intensity of Responsive Judicial Review
5: Democratic Dysfunction and the Effectiveness of Responsive Review
6: Risks to Democracy: Reverse Inertia, Democratic Backlash, and Debilitation
7: Toward Strong-Weak DS Weak-Strong Judicial Review and Remedies
8: A Responsive Judicial Voice: Building a Court's Legitimacy
9: Conclusion: Towards a New Comparative Political Process Theory
| Erscheinungsdatum | 05.09.2022 |
|---|---|
| Reihe/Serie | Oxford Comparative Constitutionalism |
| Verlagsort | Oxford |
| Sprache | englisch |
| Maße | 164 x 242 mm |
| Gewicht | 624 g |
| Themenwelt | Recht / Steuern ► Allgemeines / Lexika |
| Recht / Steuern ► EU / Internationales Recht | |
| Recht / Steuern ► Öffentliches Recht ► Verfassungsverfahrensrecht | |
| Sozialwissenschaften ► Politik / Verwaltung ► Politische Systeme | |
| ISBN-10 | 0-19-286577-3 / 0192865773 |
| ISBN-13 | 978-0-19-286577-9 / 9780192865779 |
| Zustand | Neuware |
| Haben Sie eine Frage zum Produkt? |
aus dem Bereich
