Over the past fifty years, proportionality analysis (PA) has widely diffused. It is today an overarching principle of constitutional adjudication, the preferred procedure for managing disputes involving an alleged conflict between two rights claims, or between a rights provision and a legitimate state or public interest. With the consolidation of the “new constitutionalism,”1 this type of dispute has come to dominate the dockets of constitutional and supreme courts around the world. Although other modes of rights adjudication were available and could have been chosen and developed, PA emerged as a multi-purpose, best-practice, standard.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Aleinikoff, T.A. 1987. Constitutional Law in the Age of Balancing. Yale Law Journal 5: 943–1005.
Alexy, R. 2002. A Theory of Constitutional Rights. Trans. J. Rivers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Alexy, R. 2003. Constitutional Rights, Balancing and Rationality. Ratio Juris 2: 131–40.
Alkema, E.A. 2000. The European Convention as a Constitution and its Court as a Constitutional Court. In Protecting Human Rights: The European Perspective 41. Ed. P. Mahoney, F. Matscher, H. Petzold, and L. Wildhaber, 41–63. Cologne: Carl Heymanns.
Barak, A. 2006. Human Rights in Israel. Israel Law Review 2: 12–34.
Beatty, D.M. 2004. The Ultimate Rule of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Botha, H. 2003. Rights, Limitations, and the (Im)possibility of Self-Government. In Rights and Democracy in a Transformative Constitution. Ed. H. Botha, A. Van der Walt, and J. Van der Walt, 13–31. Stellenbosch: Sun.
Cass, D. 2005. The Constitutionalization of the World Trade Organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cleveland, S. 2002. Human Rights Sanctions and International Trade: A Theory of Compatibility. Journal of International Economic Law 5: 133–89.
Collier, J.F. 1973. Law and Social Change in Zinacantan. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Dimaggio, P., and W. Powell. 1991. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. In The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Ed. P. Dimaggio and W. Powell, 63–82. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.
Ellickson, R.C. 1991. Order Without Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Flauss, J.-F. 1999. La Cour Europèenne des droits de l’homme est-elle une cour constitutionnelle? Revue française de droit constitutionnel 36: 711–28.
Gardbaum, S. 2007. Limiting Constitutional Rights. UCLA Law Review 4: 789–854.
Grimm, D. 2007. Proportionality in Canadian and German Constitutional Jurisprudence. University of Toronto Law Journal 2: 383–97.
Günther, F. 2004. Denken vom Staat her: die bundesdeutsche Staatsrechtslehre zwischen Dezision und Integration, 1949–1970. Munich: Oldenbourg.
Habermas, J. 1996. Between Facts and Norms. Trans. W. Rehg. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Hart, H.L.A. 1994. The Concept of Law. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon.
Heinsohn, S. 1997. Der öffentlichrechtliche Grundsatz der Verhältnismässigkeit. Dissertation: Munich.
Hiebert, J.L. 2004. New Constitutional Ideas: Can New Parliamentary Models Resist Judicial Dominance When Interpreting Rights? Texas Law Review 7: 1963–1988.
Hiebert, J.L. 2006. Parliamentary Bills of Rights: An Alternative Model? Modern Law Review 1: 7–28.
Hiebert, J.L. 2009. Legislating Under the Influence of Charter Norms. Forthcoming.
Hirschberg, L. 1981. Der Grundsatz der Verhältnismässigkeit. Göttingen: Schwartz.
Howse, R., and E. Tuerk. 2006. The WTO Impact on Internal Regulations: A Case Study of the Canada-EC Asbestos Dispute. In Trade and Human Health and Safety. Ed. G. Bermann and P. Mavroidis, 77–117. Cambridge, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.
Huber, E.R., ed. 1992. Dokumente zur deutschen Verfassungsgeschichte 1918–1933, vol. 4. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Hudec, R.E. 1992. The Judicialization of GATT Dispute Settlement. In Whose Interest? Due Process and Transparency in International Trade. Ed. M.H. Hart and D. Steger, 9–43. Ottawa: Centre for Trade Policy and Law.
Iles, K. 2007. A Fresh Look at Limitations: Unpacking Section 36. South Africa Journal on Human Rights 1: 68–92.
Kelsen, H. 1928. La Garantie Juridictionnelle de la Constitution. Revue du droit public 44: 197–257.
Kelsen, H. 1992. Introduction to the Problems of Legal Theory: A Translation of the First Edition of the Reine Rechtslehre or Pure Theory of Law. Trans. B. Litschewski Paulson and S.L. Paulson. Oxford: Clarendon. (1st ed. 1934.)
Kommers, D. 1994. The Federal Constitutional Court in the German Political System. Comparative Political Studies 4: 470–91.
Kumm, M. 2004. Constitutional Rights as Principles: On the Structure and Domain of Constitutional Justice. International Journal of Constitutional Law 2: 574–96.
Landfried, C. 1984. Bundesverfassungsgericht and Gesetzgeber. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Landfried, C. 1992. Judicial Policymaking in Germany: The Federal Constitutional Court. West European Politics 15: 50–67.
Lerche, P. 1961. Übermass und Verfassungsrecht: Zur Bindung des Gesetzgebers an die Grundsätze der Verhältnismässigkeit und der Erforderlichkeit. Cologne: Heymanns.
Long, O. 1985. Law and its Limitations in the GATT Multilateral Trade System. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
MacCormick, N. 1978. Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory. Oxford: Clarendon.
Majone, G. 2001. Two Logics of Delegation: Agency and Fiduciary Relations in EU Governance. European Union Politics 1: 103–22.
Nolte, G., ed. 2005. European and U.S. Constitutionalism. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Omi. 1997. Leading Decisions of the Supreme Court of Israel and Extracts from the Judgment. Israel Law Review 31: 754–803.
Pescatore, P. 1970. Fundamental Rights and Freedoms in the System of the European Communities. American Journal of Comparative Law 18: 343–51.
Petersmann, E.-U. 2000. The WTO Constitution and Human Rights. Journal of International Economic Law 3: 19–25.
Ramangkura, V. 2003. Thai Shrimp, Sea Turtles, Mangrove Forests and the WTO: Innovative Environmental Protection Under the International Trade Regime. Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 15: 677–708.
Rivers, J. 2006. Proportionality and Variable Intensity of Review. Cambridge Law Journal 1: 174–207.
Sachs, A.L. 2003. The Challenges of Post-Apartheid South Africa. Green Bag 7: 63–78.
Sadurski, W. 2005. Rights Before Courts: A Study of Constitutional Courts in the Post-Communist States of Central and Eastern Europe. Dordrecht: Springer.
Sartor, G. 1994. A Formal Model of Legal Argumentation. Ratio Juris 2: 177–211.
Schwarze, J. 2005. The Role of General Principles of Administrative Law in the Process of Europeanization of National Law. In Studies On European Public Law. Ed. L. Ortega, 25–50. Valladolid: Lex Nova.
Shapiro, M. 1986. Courts: A Comparative and Political Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shapiro, M., and A. Stone Sweet. 2002. On Law, Politics, and Judicialization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stein, E. 1981. Lawyers, Judges, and the Making of a Transnational Constitution. American Journal of International Law 1: 33–50.
Stern, K. 1993. Zur Entstehung und Ableitung des Übermaβverbots. In Wege und Verfahren des Verfassungslebens: Festschrift für Peter Lerche zum 65. Geburtstag. Ed. P. Badura and R. Scholz, 165–75. Munich: Beck.
Stolleis, M. 1998. The Law Under the Swastika. Chicago Ill.: University of Chicago Press.
Stolleis, M. 2001. Public Law in Germany, 1800–1914. New York, N.Y.: Berghahn.
Stolleis, M. 2003. Judicial Review, Administrative Review, and Constitutional Review in the Weimar Republic. Ratio Juris 2: 266–80.
Stone Sweet, A. 1997. The New GATT: Dispute Resolution and the Judicialization of the Trade Regime. In Law Above Nations: Supranational Courts and the Legalization of Politics. Ed. M. Volcansek, 118–41. Gainesville, Flo.: University Press of Florida.
Stone Sweet, A. 1999. Judicialization and the Construction of Governance. Comparative Political Studies 2: 147–84.
Stone Sweet, A. 2000. Governing with Judges: Constitutional Politics in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stone Sweet, A. 2002a. Constitutional Courts and Parliamentary Democracy. West European Politics 1: 77–100.
Stone Sweet, A. 2002b. Path Dependence, Precedent, and Judicial Power. In On Law, Politics, and Judicialization, Ed. M. Shapiro and A. Stone Sweet, 112–36. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stone Sweet, A. 2004. The Judicial Construction of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stone Sweet, A. 2008. Constitutionalism, Rights, and Judicial Power. In Comparative Politics. Ed. D. Caramani, 217–39. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stone Sweet, A., and H. Keller. 2008a. Introduction: The Reception of the ECHR in National Legal Orders. In A Europe of Rights: The Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems. Ed. A. Stone Sweet and H. Keller, 3–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stone Sweet, A., and H. Keller. 2008b. Assessing the Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems. In A Europe of Rights: The Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems. Ed. A. Stone Sweet and H. Keller, 677–710. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Trachtman, J. 2006. The Constitutions of the WTO. European Journal of International Law 3: 623–46.
Waldron, J. 2004. Some Models of Dialogues Between Judges and Legislators. Supreme Court Law Review 7: 17–21.
Walker, N. 2001. The EU and the WTO: Constitutionalism in a New Key. In The EU and the WTO: Legal and Constitutional Issues. Ed. G. De Bùrca and J. Scoot, 31–57. Oxford: Hart.
Weiler, J.H.H. 1999. The Constitution of Europe: “Do the New Clothes Have an Emperor?” and Other Essays on European Integration. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.
White, I. 2007. Convicted Prisoners and the Franchise. UK Parliament, Constitution Centre, Standard Note SN/PC/1764, Jan. 24, 2007. http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snpc-01764.pdf
Wildhaber, L. 2000. A Constitutional Future for the European Court of Human Rights? Human Rights Law Journal 23: 161–65.
Würtenberger, T. 1999. Der Schutz vom Eigentum und Freiheit im ausgehenden 18. Jahrhundert. In Zur Ideen- und Rezeptionsgeschichte des Preussischen Allgemeinen Landrechts. Ed. W. Gose and T. Würtenberger. Stuttgart: Fromman.
Zamir, I. 1994. Israeli Administrative Law Compared to German Administrative Law. Mishpat U’Mimshal 2: 109–47.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sweet, A.S., Mathews, J. (2009). Proportionality, Judicial Review, and Global Constitutionalism. In: Bongiovanni, G., Sartor, G., Valentini, C. (eds) Reasonableness and Law. Law and Philosophy Library, vol 86. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8500-0_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8500-0_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-8499-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-8500-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)