Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorStone Sweet, Alec
dc.contributor.authorMathews, Jud
dc.date2021-11-25T13:34:16.000
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-26T11:35:42Z
dc.date.available2021-11-26T11:35:42Z
dc.date.issued2008-03-11T00:00:00-07:00
dc.identifierfss_papers/14
dc.identifier.contextkey456614
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/619
dc.description.abstractOver the past fifty years, proportionality balancing – an analytical procedure akin to “strict scrutiny” in the United States – has become the dominant technique of rights adjudication in the world. From German origins, proportionality analysis spread across Europe, into Commonwealth systems (Canada, New Zealand, South Africa), and Israel; it has also migrated to treaty-based regimes, including the European Union, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the World Trade Organization. Part I proposes a theory of why judges are attracted to the procedure, an account that blends strategic and normative elements. Parts II and III provide a genealogy of proportionality, trace its global diffusion, and evaluate its impact on law and politics in a variety of settings, both national and supranational. In the conclusion, we discuss our major finding, namely, that proportionality constitutes the doctrinal underpinning for the expansion of judicial power globally. ! Indeed, judges who adopting it position themselves to exercise dominance over both policymaking and constitutional development.
dc.titleProportionality Balancing and Global Constitutionalism
dc.source.journaltitleFaculty Scholarship Series
refterms.dateFOA2021-11-26T11:35:42Z
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/14
dc.identifier.legacyfulltexthttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=fss_papers&unstamped=1


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
For_Fred_Shapiro.pdf
Size:
517.4Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record