Download Free Comparative Perspectives On Constitutionally Conforming Interpretation Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Comparative Perspectives On Constitutionally Conforming Interpretation and write the review.

This is the first part of a 2-volume set that presents an in-depth investigation into the canon of constitutionally conforming interpretation. These volumes address the fundamental issues the canon raises in the national, supranational and international contexts. In volume 1, experts from 19 jurisdictions, including Brazil, Canada, India, the UK, and the USA, present reports which give concise overviews of the approaches and debates on constitutionally conforming interpretation. These reports cover the structural background, the conditions of application, as well as issues of competence. Further aspects discussed are its perceived normativity and popularity in everyday legal practice. Together with volume 2, which explores the canon's use and theoretical impact beyond the national context in a comparative and critical manner, this book fills an important gap in legal scholarship and sets the stage for cross-national discourse.
"This is the first part of a 2-volume set that presents an in-depth investigation into the canon of constitutionally conforming interpretation. The book addresses the fundamental issues that the canon raises in the national, supranational and international context. Experts from 21 jurisdictions present reports which give concise overviews of the approaches and debates on constitutionally conforming interpretation. These reports cover the structural background, the conditions of application, as well as issues of competence. Further aspects discussed are its perceived normativity and popularity in everyday legal practice. Together with volume 2, which explores the canon's use and theoretical impact beyond the national context, this book fills an important gap in legal scholarship and sets the stage for cross-national discourse."--
This is the second part of a 2-volume set which presents an in-depth investigation into the canon of constitutionally conforming interpretation. This second volume builds upon the insights of volume 1, which includes national reports on the use of constitutional interpretation. In volume 2, the analysis is extended beyond the national context, discussing its use in the supranational and international context, such as in EU law or in the practice of the ECtHR and the IACtHR. It looks at constitutional amendments, global constitutionalism, the impact of unwritten constitutional provisions. The volume is rounded off by a comparative analyse, which formulates universally applicable insights. Together with volume 1, this book fills an important gap in legal scholarship and sets the stage for cross-national discourse.
This is the first part of a 2-volume set that presents an in-depth investigation into the canon of constitutionally conforming interpretation. These volumes address the fundamental issues the canon raises in the national, supranational and international contexts. In volume 1, experts from 19 jurisdictions, including Brazil, Canada, India, the UK, and the USA, present reports which give concise overviews of the approaches and debates on constitutionally conforming interpretation. These reports cover the structural background, the conditions of application, as well as issues of competence. Further aspects discussed are its perceived normativity and popularity in everyday legal practice. Together with volume 2, which explores the canon's use and theoretical impact beyond the national context in a comparative and critical manner, this book fills an important gap in legal scholarship and sets the stage for cross-national discourse.
Current controversies over abortion, affirmative action, school prayer, hate speech, and other issues have sparked considerable public debate about how the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted. Such controversies, along with the changing composition of an often deeply divided Supreme Court, have led to a resurgence of interest in theories of constitutional interpretation. This anthology, edited by Susan J. Brison and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, presents some of the most exciting and influential contemporary work in this area. Written by ten of the country's most prominent legal scholars, the selections represent a wide variety of interpretive approaches, reflecting different political orientations from the far right to the far left. These theorists have drawn on a variety of other disciplines, including literature, economics, history, philosophy, and politics, and have in turn influenced these fields. The selections were chosen for their accessibility, originality, variety, and importance. Together they provide an excellent introduction to constitutional interpretation as well as a valuable collection for experienced scholars in the field.
Constitutions worldwide inevitably have 'invisible' features: they have silences and lacunae, unwritten or conventional underpinnings, and social and political dimensions not apparent to certain observers. The Invisible Constitution in Comparative Perspective helps us understand these dimensions to contemporary constitutions, and their role in the interpretation, legitimacy and stability of different constitutional systems. This volume provides a nuanced theoretical discussion of the idea of 'invisibility' in a constitutional context, and its relationship to more traditional understandings of written versus unwritten constitutionalism. Containing a rich array of case studies, including discussions of constitutional practice in Australia, Canada, China, Germany, Hong Kong, Israel, Italy, Indonesia, Ireland and Malaysia, this book will look at how this aspect of 'invisible constitutions' is manifested across different jurisdictions.
This book describes the constitutions of six major federations and how they have been interpreted by their highest courts, compares the interpretive methods and underlying principles that have guided the courts, and explores the reasons for major differences between these methods and principles. Among the interpretive methods discussed are textualism, purposivism, structuralism and originalism. Each of the six federations is the subject of a separate chapter written by a leading authority in the field: Jeffrey Goldsworthy (Australia), Peter Hogg (Canada), Donald Kommers (Germany), S.P. Sathe (India), Heinz Klug (South Africa), and Mark Tushnet (United States). Each chapter describes not only the interpretive methodology currently used by the courts, but the evolution of that methodology since the constitution was first enacted. The book also includes a concluding chapter which compares these methodologies, and attempts to explain variations by reference to different social, historical, institutional and political circumstances.
"This book is a valuable study of how two jurisdictions approach the task of statutory interpretation in a complex and multivalent constitutional environment. It is the product of considerable scholarship across the two jurisdictions and a fine sensitivity to the various factors and different theoretical dimensions which inform the interpretative exercise. The exposition is clear. The argument is forceful. As with all the best works of comparative law, one reads this book and learns as much about one's own legal system as about the system with which it is compared."--The Foreword by Philip Sales (Lord Justice of Appeal, England & Wales) How far do contemporary English and German judges go when they interpret national legislation? Where are the limits of statutory interpretation when they venture outside the constraints of the text? Judicial Law-making in English and German Courts is concerned with the limits of judicial power in a legal system. It addresses the often neglected relationship between statutory interpretation and constitutional law. It traces the practical implications of constitutional principles by exploring the outer limits of what courts regard themselves as authorised to do in the area of statutory interpretation. The book critically analyses, reconstructs and compares judicial law-making in English and German courts from comparative, methodological and constitutional perspectives. It maps the differences and commonalities in both jurisdictions and then offers explanatory accounts for these differences and similarities based on constitutional, institutional, political, historical, cultural and international factors. It will be shown that a fundamental unity of statutory interpretation exists in English and German judicial practice in the sphere of rights-consistent and EU-conforming judicial law-making. The constitutional settings and legal cultures in Germany and the UK have converged in both areas of judicial law-making. However, that is not the case for judicial law-making under conventional canons of statutory interpretation, where significant differences in judicial approach to statutory interpretation remain. Judicial Law-making in English and German Courts is the first monograph in English that compares English and German legal methodology as applied in judicial practice, appealing to those interested in statutory interpretation, comparative law or legal methodology.
To what extent is the language of judicial opinions responsive to the political and social context in which constitutional courts operate? Courts are reason-giving institutions, with argumentation playing a central role in constitutional adjudication. However, a cursory look at just a handful of constitutional systems suggests important differences in the practices of constitutional judges, whether in matters of form, style, or language. Focusing on independently-verified leading cases globally, a combination of qualitative and quantitative analysis offers the most comprehensive and systematic account of constitutional reasoning to date. This analysis is supported by the examination of eighteen legal systems around the world including the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice. Universally common aspects of constitutional reasoning are identified in this book, and contributors also examine whether common law countries differ to civil law countries in this respect.
This book explores the relationship between populism or populist regimes and constitutional interpretation used in those regimes. The volume discusses the question of whether contemporary populist governments and movements have developed, or encouraged new and specific constitutional theories, doctrines and methods of interpretation, or whether their constitutional and other high courts continue to use the old, traditional interpretative tools in constitutional adjudication. The book is divided into four parts. Part I contains three chapters elaborating the theoretical basis for the discussion. Part II examines the topic from a comparative perspective, representing those European countries where populism is most prevalent, including Austria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Romania, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Part III extends the focus to the United States, reflecting how American jurisprudence and academia have produced the most important contributions to the theory of constitutional interpretation, and how recent political developments in that country might challenge the traditional understanding of judicial review. This section also includes a general overview on Latin America, where there are also some populist governments and strong populist movements. Finally, the editors’ closing study analyses the outcomes of the comparative research, summarizing the conclusions of the book. Written by renowned national constitutional scholars, the book will be essential reading for students, academics and researchers working in Constitutional Law and Politics. Chapter 1 of this book is freely available as a downloadable Open Access PDF at http://www.taylorfrancis.com under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.