You may have to Search all our reviewed books and magazines, click the sign up button below to create a free account.
A comparative and historical account of the origins and meanings of the discourse of judicial 'balancing' in constitutional rights law.
Explores how constitutional orders engage with and are shaped by their exteriors.
A collection of essays exploring the gap between theory and practice in comparative legal studies.
In Judicial Deliberations: A Comparative Analysis of Judicial Transparency and Legitimacy (2004), the American-French scholar Mitchel Lasser has, among other things, tried to re-establish the strengths of the French cassation system. Using Lasser's approach and ideas as a starting point for this book, judges from the French, Belgian and Dutch Cassation Courts reflect on the challenges that their Courts are facing. Specific attention is also given to the Strasbourg Court on Human Rights, that has been so important for the moral legitimacy of the European legal order, and to courts in post-communist systems, which face many similar challenges and are under even greater pressure to modernise. The book is a multidisciplinary contribution to the international debate about the legitimacy of highest courts' rulings, the concept of judicial leadership, and offers a new perspective in the USA-versus-Europe debate.
A strong counter-argument to the universalising discourse on proportionality and global constitutionalism.
In Judicial Deliberations: A Comparative Analysis of Judicial Transparency and Legitimacy (2004), the American-French scholar Mitchel Lasser has, among other things, tried to re-establish the strengths of the French cassation system. Using Lasser's approach and ideas as a starting point for this book, judges from the French, Belgian and Dutch Cassation Courts reflect on the challenges that their Courts are facing. Specific attention is also given to the Strasbourg Court on Human Rights, that has been so important for the moral legitimacy of the European legal order, and to courts in post-communist systems, which face many similar challenges and are under even greater pressure to modernise. The book is a multidisciplinary contribution to the international debate about the legitimacy of highest courts' rulings, the concept of judicial leadership, and offers a new perspective in the USA-versus-Europe debate.
The language of balancing is pervasive in constitutional rights jurisprudence around the world. In this book, Jacco Bomhoff offers a comparative and historical account of the origins and meanings of this talismanic form of language, and of the legal discourse to which it is central. Contemporary discussion has tended to see the increasing use of balancing as the manifestation of a globalization of constitutional law. This book is the first to argue that 'balancing' has always meant radically different things in different settings. Bomhoff uses detailed case studies of early post-war US and German constitutional jurisprudence to show that the same unique language expresses both biting scepticism and profound faith in law and adjudication, and both deep pessimism and high aspirations for constitutional rights. An understanding of these radically different meanings is essential for any evaluation of the work of constitutional courts today.
The most up-to-date and contextualised offering for comparative law students and scholars, referencing the newest research in the field.
Over the past decades, the field commonly known as comparative law has significantly expanded. The multiplication of journals, the proliferation of scholarship and the creation of courses or summer schools specifically devoted to comparative law attest to its increasing popularity. Within the Western legal tradition, a traditional, black-letter approach to law has proved particularly authoritative. This co-authored book rethinks comparative law’s mainstream model by providing both students and lawyers with the intellectual equipment allowing them to approach any foreign law in a more meaningful way.