Cover of book: Verhältnismäßigkeit und Verfassungsgerichte als Rechtfertigungsinstanzen
Buy in shop
, to see if you have full access to this publication.
Book Titles No access

Verhältnismäßigkeit und Verfassungsgerichte als Rechtfertigungsinstanzen

Authors:
Publisher:
 22.11.2023

Summary

The context of this book is the widespread use of proportionality and balancing of principles in several legal systems. Its main aim is to discuss why and under which conditions these techniques may improve the constitutional review process. It also addresses the issue of how legal arguments and institutional factors interact in constitutional reasoning, analysing the main theses of academic debate such as "judicial deference". The book proposes an original contribution to improving proportionality review that incorporates into its structure arguments on democratic legitimacy, technical capacity, or institutional competence.

Keywords

Bibliographic data

Publication year
2023
Publication date
22.11.2023
ISBN-Print
978-3-8487-8999-3
ISBN-Online
978-3-7489-3462-2
Publisher
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Series
Studien zur Rechtsphilosophie und Rechtstheorie
Volume
83
Language
German
Pages
239
Product type
Book Titles

Table of contents

ChapterPages
  1. Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis No access 1 - 12
    1. A. Kontext der Untersuchung No access
    2. B. Ziele No access
    3. C. These No access
    4. D. Gang der Untersuchung No access
    1. A. Internationale Verbreitung der Verhältnismäßigkeit No access
      1. I. Regeln: Anwendung und Konfliktlösung No access
      2. II. Prinzipien: Anwendung und Kollisionslösung No access
      3. III. Der prima-facie-Vorrang der Regeln vor den Prinzipien No access
      1. I. Teilgrundsatz der Geeignetheit No access
      2. II. Teilgrundsatz der Erforderlichkeit No access
      3. III. Teilgrundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit im engeren Sinne No access
    4. D. Verhältnismäßigkeit als Ergebnis der Unterscheidung zwischen Prinzipien und Regeln No access
    5. E. Schlussfolgerung des Kapitels No access
    1. A. Einführung No access
      1. I. Eine weite Tatbestandstheorie No access
      2. II. Eine Außentheorie des definitiven Rechtsschutzbaus No access
      3. III. Die weite Tatbestandtheorie und die Außentheorie als Voraussetzungen der Verhältnismäßigkeitsprüfung No access
    3. C. Verhältnismäßigkeit und das Erfordernis der Begründung richterlicher Entscheidungen No access
        1. a. Grégoire Webbers Einwand der Inkommensurabilität: Missverständnis der Struktur der Verhältnismäßigkeitsprüfung No access
      2. II. Die Suche nach einer richterlichen Argumentation, die alle Staatsbürger in Rechten und Freiheit als gleich ansieht No access
    5. E. Argumentative Repräsentation der Bürger durch die Verfassungsgerichte No access
    6. F. Schlussfolgerung des Kapitels No access
    1. A. Einführung No access
    2. B. Das Argument der globalen Nachfrage nach Rechtfertigung: das Problem der Verwechslung zwischen den beschreibenden und vorschreibenden Dimensionen No access
    3. C. Die Verteidigung der Verhältnismäßigkeit auf der Grundlage der Idee der Rechtfertigung No access
    4. D. Argumentative Voraussetzungen der Verhältnismäßigkeit und Handlungsweise der Verfassungsgerichte als Rechtfertigungsinstanzen No access
    5. D. Strukturelle Spielräume als Folge der Rechtfertigungsgrenze No access
    6. E. Die Notwendigkeit der funktionellen Unterscheidung zwischen Parlamenten und Verfassungsgerrichten No access
    7. F. Verfassungsgerichte als Rechtfertigungsinstanzen und Demokratie No access
    8. G. Der globaler Anspruch der rechtfertigenden Funktion des Verfassungsgerichts No access
    9. H. Schlussfolgerung des Kapitels No access
    1. A. Einen Schritt weiter No access
      1. I. “Räumliche Metaphern” und Einteilung in Zonen mit unterschiedlichen Kontrollintensitäten No access
      2. II. Die Due Deference-Doktrin: Explizite Argumentation bei der Bestimmung des deference-Grades No access
      3. III. Non-doctrinalists: Die Kritiker der Idee der judicial deference No access
      4. IV. Der Begriff “judicial deference” No access
      1. I. Die Frage der formellen Prinzipien No access
    4. D. Schlussfolgerung des Kapitels No access
    1. A. Argumentationsstrukturen, Gewaltenteilung und Schutz der Grundrechte No access
    2. B. Die Relevanz der Argumentationsstrukturen zur richtertichen Normkontrolle No access
  8. Literaturverzeichnis No access 231 - 239

Bibliography (164)

  1. AFONSO DA SILVA, VIRGÍLIO, A Constitucionalização do Direito: Os Direitos Fundamentais nas Relações entre Particulares, São Paulo, Malheiros, 2005. Open Google Scholar
  2. AFONSO DA SILVA, VIRGÍLIO, Comparing the incommensurable: constitutional principles, balancing and retional decision, in: Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 31 2011, 1-29. Open Google Scholar
  3. AFONSO DA SILVA, VIRGÍLIO, Deciding without deliberating, in: International Journal of Constitutional Law 11 2013, 557-584. Open Google Scholar
  4. AFONSO DA SILVA, VIRGÍLIO, Direitos Fundamentais: Conteúdo essencial, restrições, eficácia, 2. Aufl. São Paulo 2011. Open Google Scholar
  5. AFONSO DA SILVA, VIRGÍLIO, Grundrechte und gesetzgeberische Spielräume, Baden-Baden, 2003. Open Google Scholar
  6. AFONSO DA SILVA, VIRGÍLIO, O proporcional e o razoável. In: Revista dos Tribunais 789 2002, 23-50. Open Google Scholar
  7. AFONSO DA SILVA, VIRGÍLIO, Ponderação e objetividade na interpretação constitucional. In: Barbieri / Macedo Jr. (org.) Direito e Interpretação Constitucional, São Paulo, 2010, 115-143. Open Google Scholar
  8. AFONSO DA SILVA, VIRGÍLIO, Prinzipientheorie, Abwägungskompetenzen und Gewaltenteilung, in: Sieckmann, Jan (Hrsg.) Die Prinzipientheorie der Grundrecht: Studien zur Grundrechtstheorie Robert Alexys, Baden-Baden 2007, 215-230. Open Google Scholar
  9. AFONSO DA SILVA, VIRGÍLIO, The Brazilian Supreme Court Needs Iolaus: A Reply to Marcelo Neves’ Objections to Balancing and Optimization, in: Revista Direito UnB 2 2016, 96–117. Open Google Scholar
  10. AFONSO DA SILVA, VIRGÍLIO, How Global is Global Constitutionalism?: Comments on Kai Möller ‘The Global Model of Constitutional Rights’ in: Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies 10 2014, 175-186. Open Google Scholar
  11. ALEXY, ROBERT, Balancing, Constitutional Review and Representation, in: International Journal of Constitutional Law 4 2005, 572-581. Open Google Scholar
  12. ALEXY, ROBERT, Constitutional Rights, Democracy and Representation, in: Richerche Giuridiche 3 2014, 197-210. Open Google Scholar
  13. ALEXY, ROBERT, Die Gewichtsformel, in: Jickeli / Kreutz / Reuter (Hrsg.) Gedächtnisschrift für Jürgen Sonnenschein, Berlin, 2003, 771-792. Open Google Scholar
  14. ALEXY, ROBERT, Die Konstruktion der Grundrechte, in: Clérico / Sieckmann (Hrsg.) Grundrechte, Prinzipien und Argumentation: Studien zur Rechtstheorie Robert Alexys, Baden-Baden 2009, 9-19. Open Google Scholar
  15. ALEXY, ROBERT, Grundrechte im demokratischen Verfassungsstaat, in: Aarnio / Alexy / Bergholtz (Hrsg.) Justice, Morality and Society: A tribute to Alexsander Peczenik on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday, Lund, 1997, 27-42. Open Google Scholar
  16. ALEXY, ROBERT, Ideales Sollen, in: Clérico / Sieckmann (Hrsg.) Grundrechte, Prinzipien und Argumentation: Studien zur Rechtstheorie Robert Alexys, Baden-Baden 2009, 21-38. Open Google Scholar
  17. ALEXY, ROBERT, On Balancing and Subsumption: A structural comparison, in: Ratio Juris 16 2003, 443-449. Open Google Scholar
  18. ALEXY, ROBERT, Rechtsregeln und Rechtsprinzipien, in: ARSP 25 1985, 13-29. Open Google Scholar
  19. ALEXY, ROBERT, Rechtssystem und praktische Vernunft, in: Alexy, Robert, Recht, Vernunft und Diskurs: Studien zur Rechtsphilosophie, Frankfurt am Main, 1995, 213-231. Open Google Scholar
  20. ALEXY, ROBERT, Postscript, in: Alexy, Robert, A Theory of Constitutional Rights, Oxford, 2002, 388-425. Open Google Scholar
  21. ALEXY, ROBERT, Theorie der Grundrechte, 3. Aufl. Frankfurt am Main 1996. Open Google Scholar
  22. ALEXY, ROBERT, Theorie der juristischen Argumentation: Die Theorie des rationalen Diskurses als Theorie der juristischen Begründung, 2. Aufl. Frankfurt am Main 1991. Open Google Scholar
  23. ALEXY, ROBERT, The Special Case Thesis in: Ratio Juris 12 1999, 374-384. Open Google Scholar
  24. ALEXY, ROBERT, The Special Case Thesis and the Dual Nature of Law in: Ratio Juris 31 2018, 254-259. Open Google Scholar
  25. ALEXY, ROBERT, Verfassungsrecht und einfaches Recht: Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit und Fachgerichtsbarkeit, in: VVDStRL 61 2002, 7-33. Open Google Scholar
  26. ALLAN, T.R.S., Common Law Reason and the Limits of Judicial Deference, in: Dyzenhaus, David (ed.), The Unity of Public Law, Oxford 2004, 289-306. Open Google Scholar
  27. ALLAN, T.R.S., Human Rights and Judicial Review: A Critique of ‘‘Due Deference’, in: Cambridge Law Journal 65 2006, 671-695. Open Google Scholar
  28. ALMEIDA, FERNANDA DIAS MENEZES DE, As Imunidades Parlamentares na Constituição Brasileira de 1988, in: Anuário Português de Direito Constitucional 3 2003, 87-110. Open Google Scholar
  29. ÁVILA, HUMBERTO, Neoconstitucionalismo: entre a “ciência do direito” e o “direito da ciência”, in: Revista Eletrônica de Direito do Estado 17 2009, 1-19. Open Google Scholar
  30. ÁVILA, HUMBERTO, Teoria dos Princípios, 15. Aufl., São Paulo 2014. Open Google Scholar
  31. BARKOW, RACHEL E. More Supreme than Court? The Fall of the Political Question Doctrine and the Rise of Judicial Supremacy, in: Columbia Law Review 102 2002, 237-336. Open Google Scholar
  32. BELLEM DE LIMA, RAFAEL, Regras na Teoria dos Princípios, São Paulo 2014. Open Google Scholar
  33. BICKEL, ALEXANDER M., The Least Dangerous Branch, 2. Aufl. New Haven, 1986. Open Google Scholar
  34. BIX, BRIAN, H. L. A. Hart and the ‘Open Texture’ of Language, in: Bix, Brian, Law, Language and Legal Determinacy, Oxford, 1993, 7-35. Open Google Scholar
  35. BÖCKENFÖRDE, ERNST-WOLFGANG, Grundrechte als Grundsatznormen: Zur gegenwärtigen Lage der Grundrechtsdogmatik, in: Der Staat 29 1990, 1-31. Open Google Scholar
  36. BÖCKENFÖRDE, ERNST-WOLFGANG, Schutzbereich, Eingriff, verfassungsimmanente Schranken: Zur Kritik gegenwärtiger Grundrechtsdogmatik, in: Der Staat 42 2003, 165-192. Open Google Scholar
  37. BÖCKENFÖRDE, ERNST-WOLFGANG, Vier Thesen zur Kommunitarismus-Debatte, in: Siller / Keller (Hrsg.), Rechtsphilosophische Kontroversen der Gegenwart, Baden-Baden, 1999, 83-86. Open Google Scholar
  38. BOROWSKI, MARTIN, Grundrechte als Prinzipien, 2. Aufl. Baden-Baden, 2007. Open Google Scholar
  39. BOROWSKI, MARTIN, The Structure of Formal Principles – Robert Alexy’s Law of Combination, in: Martin Borowski (Hg.), On the Nature of Legal Principles, ARSP Beiheft 119 2010, 25-35. Open Google Scholar
  40. BRADY, ALAN D. P., Proportionality and Deference under UK Human Rights Act: An Institutionally Sensitive Approach, Cambridge, 2012. Open Google Scholar
  41. BUSTAMANTE, THOMAS, Argumentação Contra Legem: A teoria do discurso e a justificação jurídica nos casos mais difíceis, Rio de Janeiro 2005. Open Google Scholar
  42. BUSTAMANTE, THOMAS, Principios, reglas y derrotabilidad, in: Ramírez, Pablo Raúl Bonorino (ed.) Teoria del Derecho y Decisión Judicial, Madrid, 2010, 205-284. Open Google Scholar
  43. CLÉRICO, LAURA, Die Struktur der Verhältnismäßigkeit, Baden-Baden, 2001. Open Google Scholar
  44. CLÉRICO, LAURA, Hacía la reconstrucción de un modelo integrado de proporcionalidad a la luz de la jurisprudencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, in: Capaldo / Sieckmann / Clérico, Internacionalización del Derecho Constitucional, Constitucionalización del Derecho Internacional, Buenos Aires 2012.199-220. Open Google Scholar
  45. COHEN-ELIYA, MOSHE / PORAT, IDDO, American balancing and German proportionality: The historical origins, International Journal of Constitutional Law 8 2010, 263–286. Open Google Scholar
  46. COHEN-ELIYA, MOSHE / PORAT, IDDO, Proportionality and Constitutional Culture, Cambridge 2013. Open Google Scholar
  47. COHEN-ELIYA, MOSHE / PORAT, IDDO, Proportionality and Culture of Justification, in: American Journal of Comparative Law 59 2011, 463-490. Open Google Scholar
  48. CRAIG, PAUL, Proportionality, Rationality and Review, in: New Zealand Law Review 2 2010, 265-301. Open Google Scholar
  49. DECHSLING, RAINER, Das Verhältnismäßigkeitsgebot: Eine Bestandaufnahme der Literatur zur Verhältnismäßigkeit staatlichen Handels, München, 1989. Open Google Scholar
  50. DIMOULIS, DIMITRI / MARTINS, LEONARDO, Teoria Geral dos Direitos Fundamentais, São Paulo, 2007. Open Google Scholar
  51. DIVER, COLIN S., The Judge as a Political Powerbroker: Superintending Structural Change in Public Institutions in: Virginia Law Review 65 1979, 46-106. Open Google Scholar
  52. DWORKIN, RONALD, The model of rules I, in: Dworkin, Ronald, Taking Rights Seriouly, Cambridge/Mass 1978, 14-45. Open Google Scholar
  53. DYZENHAUS, DAVID, Law as Justification: Etienne Mureinik's Conception of Legal Culture in: South African Journal of Human Rights 14 1998, 11-37. Open Google Scholar
  54. DYZENHAUS, DAVID, The Politics of Deference: Judicial Review and Democracy in: Taggart, Michael (ed.), The Province of Administrative Law, Oxford 1997, 279-307. Open Google Scholar
  55. EDWARDS, RICHARD A., Judicial Deference Under the Human Rights Act, in: The Modern Law Review 65 2002, 859–882. Open Google Scholar
  56. ELY, JOHN HART, Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review, Cambridge (Mass.)/ London 1980. Open Google Scholar
  57. EMILIOU, NICHOLAS, The Principle of Proportionality in European Law: A comparative Study, Dordrecht, 1996. Open Google Scholar
  58. EPSTEIN, LEE / KNIGHT. JACK / SHVETSOVA, OLGA, Comparing Judicial Selection System, in: William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal 10 2001, 7-36. Open Google Scholar
  59. FAREJOHN, JOHN, The Citizens’Assembly Model, in: Warren / Pearse (eds.) Designing Deliberative Democracy: The British Columbia Citizens' Assembly, Cambridge 2008, 192-213. Open Google Scholar
  60. FOLEY, BRIAN, Deference and the Presumption of Constitutionality, Dublin 2008. Open Google Scholar
  61. FRANTZ, LAURENT B., Is the First Amendment Law?: A reply to Professor Mendelson in: California Law Review 51 1963, 729-754. Open Google Scholar
  62. GARDBAUM, STEPHEN, Reassessing the new Commonwealth model of constitutionalism, in: International Journal of Constitutional Law 8 2010, 167-206. Open Google Scholar
  63. GARDBAUM, STEPHEN, The New Commonwealth Model of Constitutionalism: Theory and Practice, Cambridge 2013. Open Google Scholar
  64. GEARTY, CONOR. Principles of Human Rights Adjudication, Oxford, 2005. Open Google Scholar
  65. GONÇALVES, GUILHERME LEITE, Função interpretativa, alopoiese do direito e hermenêutica da cordialidade, in: Direito e Praxis 1 2010, 16-31. Open Google Scholar
  66. GONET BRANCO, PAULO GUSTAVO, Juízo de Ponderação na Jurisdição Constitucional, São Paulo 2009. Open Google Scholar
  67. HABERMAS, JÜRGEN, Faktizität und Geltung, Frankfurt am Main, 1998. Open Google Scholar
  68. HART, H. L. A. The Concept of Law, 2 Aufl. Oxford, 1994. Open Google Scholar
  69. HENKIN, LOUIS., Is there a “Political Question” Doctrine? in: Yale Law Journal 85 1976, 597-625. Open Google Scholar
  70. HICKMAN, TOM, Problems for Proportionality, in: New Zealand Law Review 2 2010, 303-326. Open Google Scholar
  71. HICKMAN, TOM, Public Law after the Human Rights Act, Oxford 2010. Open Google Scholar
  72. HIEBERT, JANET L., Parliamentary Bills of Rights: An alternative model? in: Modern Law Review 69 2006, 7-28. Open Google Scholar
  73. HIRSCHBERG, LOTHAR. Der Grundsatz der Verthältnissmäßigkeit, Göttingen, 1981. Open Google Scholar
  74. HUNT, MURRAY, Against Bifurcation, in: Dyzenhaus / Hunt / Huscroft (eds.) A Simple Common Lawyer: Essays in Honor of Michael Taggart, Oxford 2009, 99-122. Open Google Scholar
  75. HUNT, MURRAY, Sovereignty’s Blight: Why Contemporary Public Law Needs the Concept of ‘Due Deference’, in: Bamforth / Leyland (eds.) Public Law in a Multi-Layered Constitution, Oxford 2003, 337-370. Open Google Scholar
  76. HUSCROFT, GRANT/ MILLER, BRADLEY W. / WEBBER. GRÉGOIRE, Introduction, in: Huscroft / Miller / Webber, Proportionality and the Rule of Law: Rights, Justification, Reasoning, Cambridge 2014, 1-18. Open Google Scholar
  77. JESTAEDT, MATTHIAS, Die Abwägungslehre – ihre Stärken und ihre Schwächen, in: Depenheuer / Heintzen/ Jestaedt / Axer (Hrsg.) Staat im Wort: Festschrift für Josef Isensee, Heidelberg 2007, 253-275. Open Google Scholar
  78. JOWELL, JEFFREY, Beyond the Rule of Law: Towards Constitutional Judicial Review in: Public Law, Winter, 2000, 671-683. Open Google Scholar
  79. JOWELL, JEFFREY, Judicial Deference: servility, civility or institutional capacity? in: Public Law, Winter, 2003, 592-601. Open Google Scholar
  80. KAVANAGH, AILEEN, Constitutional Review under the UK Human Rights Act, Cambridge 2009. Open Google Scholar
  81. KAVANAGH, AILEEN, Deference or Defiance? The Limits of the Judicial Role in Constitutional Adjudication, in: Huscroft, Grant (ed.) Expounding the Constitution: Essays in Constitutional Theory, Cambridge 2009, 184-216. Open Google Scholar
  82. KING, JEFF A., Institutional Approaches to Judicial Restraint, in: Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 28 2008, 409-441. Open Google Scholar
  83. KING, JEFF A., Proportionality: A Halfway House?, in: New Zealand Law Review 2 2010, 327-367. Open Google Scholar
  84. KISCHEL, UWE, Party, pope, and politics? The election of German Constitutional Court Justices in comparative perspective, in: International Journal of Constitutional Law 11 2013, 962-980. Open Google Scholar
  85. KLATT, MATTHIAS / SCHMIDT, JOHANNES, Epistemic Discretion in Constitutional Law, in: International Journal of Constitutional Law 10 2012, 69-105. Open Google Scholar
  86. KLATT, MATTHIAS / SCHMIDT, JOHANNES, Spierlräume im Öffentlichen Recht: Zur Abwägungslehre der Prinzipientheorie, Tübingen 2010. Open Google Scholar
  87. KLATT, MATTHIAS, An egalitarian defense of proportionality based-balancing: A reply to Luc B. Tremblay, in: International Journal of Constitutional Law 12 2014, 891-899. Open Google Scholar
  88. KLATT, MATTHIAS, Balancing Competences: How institutional cosmopolitanism can manage jurisdictional, in: Global Constitutionalism 4 2015, 195-226. Open Google Scholar
  89. KLATT, MATTHIAS, Positive rights: Who decides? Judicial review in balance, in: International Journal of Constitutional Law 13 2015, 354-382. Open Google Scholar
  90. KLATT, MATTHIAS, Taking Rights less Seriously: a structural analysis of judicial discretion, in: Ratio Juris 20 2007, 506-529. Open Google Scholar
  91. KLEMENT, JAN HENRIK, Vom Nutzen einer Theorie, die alles erklärt: Robert Alexys Prinzipientheorie aus der Sicht der Grundrechtsdogmatik , In: JuristenZeitung 15/16 2008, 756-763. Open Google Scholar
  92. KUMM, MATTIAS, Alexy’s Theory of Constitutional Rights and the Problem of Judicial Review, in: Klatt, Matthias (ed.), Institutionalized Reason: The Jurisprudence of Robert Alexy, Oxford, 2012, 201-217. Open Google Scholar
  93. KUMM, MATTIAS, Constitutional rights as principles: On the structure and domain of constitutional justice. A review essay on A Theory of Constitutional Rights. In: International Journal of Constitutional Law 2 2004, 574-596. Open Google Scholar
  94. KUMM, MATTIAS, Institutionalizing Socratic Contestation: The Rationalist Human Rights Paradigm, Legitimate Authority and the Point of Judicial Review. In: European Journal of Legal Studies 2 2007, 1-32. Open Google Scholar
  95. KUMM, MATTIAS, The Idea of Socratic Contestation: The Point of Rights-based Proportionality Review In: Law & Ethics of Human Rights 4 2010, 142-175. Open Google Scholar
  96. KUMM, MATTIAS, Who Is Afraid of the Total Constitution? Constitutional Rights as Principles and the Constitutionalization of Private Law. In: German Law Journal 7 2006, 341-370. Open Google Scholar
  97. LIMA LOPES, JOSÉ REINALDO DE, Juízo jurídico e a falsa solução dos princípios e das regras, in: Revista de Informação Legislativa 160 2003, 49-64. Open Google Scholar
  98. LUTERÁN, MARTIN, The Lost Meaning of Proportionality, in: Huscroft / Miller / Webber, Proportionality and the Rule of Law: Rights, Justification, Reasoning, Cambridge 2014, 21-42. Open Google Scholar
  99. MENDES, CONRADO HÜBNER, Constitutional Courts and Deliberative Democracy, Oxford, 2013. Open Google Scholar
  100. MENDES, CONRADO HÜBNER, Direitos Fundamentais, Separação de Poderes e Deliberação, São Paulo 2011. Open Google Scholar
  101. MENDES, CONRADO HÜBNER, Is it All About the Last Word? Deliberative Separation of Powers 1, in: Legisprudence 3 2009, 69-110. Open Google Scholar
  102. MENDES, CONRADO HÜBNER, Neither Dialogue Nor Last Word – Deliberative Separation of Powers 3, in: Legisprudence 5 2011, 1-40. Open Google Scholar
  103. MENDES, CONRADO HÜBNER, Not the Last Word, But Dialogue – Deliberative Separation of Powers 2, in: Legisprudence 3 2009, 191-246. Open Google Scholar
  104. MICHELON, CLÁUDIO, Princípios e Coerência na Argumentação Jurídica In: Barbieri / Macedo Jr. (org.) Direito e Interpretação Constitucional, São Paulo, 2010, 261-285. Open Google Scholar
  105. MÖLLER, KAI, Balancing and the Structure of Constitutional Rights In: International Journal of Constitutional Law 5 2007, 453-468. Open Google Scholar
  106. MÖLLER, KAI, From constitutional to human rights: On the moral structure of international human rights, in: Global Constitutionalism 3 2014, 373-403. Open Google Scholar
  107. MÖLLER, KAI, Proportionality and Rights Inflation, in: Huscroft / Miller / Webber, Proportionality and the Rule of Law: Rights, Justification, Reasoning, Cambridge 2014, 155-172. Open Google Scholar
  108. MÖLLER, KAI, The Global Model of Constitutional Rights, Oxford 2012. Open Google Scholar
  109. MÜLLER, FRIEDRICH, Strukturierende Rechtslehre, 2. Aufl., Berlin 1994. Open Google Scholar
  110. MUREINIK, ETIENNE, A Bridge to Where? Introducing the Interim Bill of Right, in: South African Journal of Human Rights 10 1994, 31-38. Open Google Scholar
  111. NEVES, MARCELO, Entre Hidra e Hércules: Princípios e Regras Constitucionais, São Paulo 2013. Open Google Scholar
  112. NEVES, MARCELO, Transconstitucionalismo, São Paulo 2009. Open Google Scholar
  113. PERRY, STEPHEN R, Second-Order Reasons, Uncertainty and Legal Theory, in: Southern California Law Review 64 1997, 913-994. Open Google Scholar
  114. PIEROTH, BODO / SCHLINK, BERNHARD, Grundrechte: Staatsrecht II, 23. Aufl. Heidelberg, 2007. Open Google Scholar
  115. POOLE, THOMAS, Legitimacy, Rights and Judicial Review in: Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 25 2005, 697-725. Open Google Scholar
  116. PORAT, IDDO, Mapping the American Debate over Balancing, in: Huscroft / Miller / Webber, Proportionality and the Rule of Law: Rights, Justification, Reasoning, Cambridge 2014, 397-416. Open Google Scholar
  117. POSCHER, RALF, Einsichten, Irrtürmer und Selbstmissverständnis der Prinzipientheorie, in: Sieckmann, Jan-R. (Hrsg.) Die Prinzipientheorie der Grundrechte. Studien zur Grundrechtstheorie Robert Alexys, Baden-Baden 2007, 59-79. Open Google Scholar
  118. POSCHER, RALF, Grundrechte als Abwehrrechte: Reflexive Regelung rechtlich geordneter Freiheit, Tübingen, 2003. Open Google Scholar
  119. PÖYHÖNEN, JUHA, Auslegung contra legem als ein deskonstruktives Spiel von Regeln und Prinzipien im Recht, in: Rechtstheorie 20 1989, 211-220. Open Google Scholar
  120. RAWLS, JOHN, The Idea of Public Reason Revisited, in: The University of Chicago Law Review 64 1997, 756-807. Open Google Scholar
  121. RAZ, JOSEPH, On the Authority and Interpretation of Constitutions: Some Preliminaries, in: Raz, Joseph, Between Authority and Interpretation: On the Theory of Law and Practical Reason, Oxford 2009, 321-370. Open Google Scholar
  122. RIVERS, JULIAN, Proportionality, Discretion and The Second Law of Balancing, in: Pavlakos, George (ed.), Law, Rights and Discourse: The Legal Philosophy of Robert Alexy, Oxford / Portland, 2007, 167-188. Open Google Scholar
  123. RIVERS, JULIAN, Proportionality and Variable Intensity of Review, in: Cambridge Law Journal 65 2006, 174-207. Open Google Scholar
  124. SCHAUER, FREDERICK, Balancing, Subsumption and the constraining role of the legal text, in: Law & Ethics of Human Rights 4 2010, 34-45. Open Google Scholar
  125. SCHAUER, FREDERICK, Deferring, in: Michigan Law Review 103 2005, 1567-1577. Open Google Scholar
  126. SCHAUER, FREDERICK, Freedom of Expression Adjudication in Europe and America: A Case Study in Comparative Constitutional Architecture, in: Nolte, Georg (ed.), European and US- Constitutionalism, Cambridge 2009, 49-69. Open Google Scholar
  127. SCHAUER, FREDERICK, On the Supposed Defeasibility of Legal Rules, in: Current Legal Problems 51 1998, 223-240. Open Google Scholar
  128. SCHAUER, FREDERICK, Playing by the Rules: a Philosophical Examination of Rule Based Decision Making in Law and Life, Oxford, 1993. Open Google Scholar
  129. SCHAUER, FREDERICK, Prescriptions in Three Dimensions, in: Iowa Law Review 82 1996, 911-922. Open Google Scholar
  130. SCHAUER, FREDERICH, Proportionality and Question of Weight, in: Huscroft / Miller / Webber, Proportionality and the Rule of Law: Rights, Justification, Reasoning, Cambridge 2014, 173-185. Open Google Scholar
  131. SCHAUER, FREDERICK, Thinking Like a Lawyer: A New Introduction to Legal Reasoning, Cambridge (Mass.) 2012. Open Google Scholar
  132. SCHLINK, BERNHARD, Der Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit, in: Badura / Dreier (Hrsg.) Festschrift 50 Jahre Bundesverfassungsgericht, Band II, Tübingen, 2001, 445-465. Open Google Scholar
  133. SCHLINK, BERNHARD, Freiheit durch Eingriffsabwehr – Rekonstruktion der klassischen Grundrechtsfunktion, in: Europäische Grundrechte Zeitschrift11 1984, 457-468. Open Google Scholar
  134. SIECKMANN, JAN, Argumentation und demokratische Legitimation in: Sieckmann, Jan (Hrsg.) Argumentation und politische Legitimation, Baden-Baden 2006, 57-68. Open Google Scholar
  135. SIECKMANN, JAN, Balancing, Optimisationand Alexy’s ‘Weight Formula’ in: Sieckmann, Jan (ed.) Legal Reasoning: the Methods of Balancing – ARSP-Beiheft 124, 2010, 101-118. Open Google Scholar
  136. SIECKMANN, JAN, Grundrechtliche Abwägung als Rechtsanwendung: Das Problem der Begrenzung der Besteurung, in: Der Staat 41 2002, 385-405. Open Google Scholar
  137. SIECKMANN, JAN, Probleme der Prinzipientheorie der Grundrechte, in: Clérico / Sieckmann (Hrsg.) Grundrechte, Prinzipien und Argumentation: Studien zur Rechtstheorie Robert Alexys, Baden-Baden 2009, 39-66. Open Google Scholar
  138. SIECKMANN, JAN, Recht als normatives System: Die Prinzipientheorie des Rechts, Baden-Baden, 2009. Open Google Scholar
  139. SIECKMANN, JAN, Regelmodelle und Prinzipienmodelle des Rechtssystems, Baden-Baden, 1990. Open Google Scholar
  140. SIEDMAN, LOUIS MICHAEL, The Secret Life of The Political Question Doctrine, in: Marshall Law Review 37 2004, 441-480. Open Google Scholar
  141. STEINMETZ, WILSON, A vinculação dos particulares a direitos fundamentais, São Paulo, 2004. Open Google Scholar
  142. STONE SWEET, ALEC / MATTHEWS, JUD, All things in proportion? American Rights Review and the Problem of Balancing in: Emory Law Journal 60 2011, 799-875. Open Google Scholar
  143. STONE SWEET, ALEC / MATTHEWS, JUD, Proportionality, Judicial Review, and Global Constitutionalism, in: Bongiovanni / Sartor / Valentini, Reasonableness and Law, Dordrecht 2009, 171-214. Open Google Scholar
  144. SUMMERS, ROBERT S., Two Types of Substantive Reasons: The Core of a Theory of Common-Law Justification, in: Cornell Law Review 63 1978, 707-788. Open Google Scholar
  145. SUNDFELD, CARLOS ARI, Princípio é Preguiça? In: Barbieri / Macedo Jr. (org.) Direito e Interpretação Constitucional, São Paulo, 2010, 287-305. Open Google Scholar
  146. TAGGART, MICHAEL, Proportionality, Deference, Wednesbury, in: New Zealand Law Review 3 2008, 423-481. Open Google Scholar
  147. TATE, C. NEAL / VALLINDER, TORBJÖRN, The Global Expansion of Judicial Power: The Judicialization of Politics, in: Tale / Vallinder (eds.) The Global Expansion of Judicial Power, New York, 1995, 1-10. Open Google Scholar
  148. TEIXEIRA, JOSÉ ELAERES MARQUES, A Doutrina das Questões Políticas no Supremo Tribunal Federal, Porto Alegre 2005. Open Google Scholar
  149. TUSHNET, MARK. Alternative Forms of Judicial Review, in: Michigan Law Review 101 2003, 2781-2802. Open Google Scholar
  150. TUSHNET, MARK. Taking the Constitution Away from the Courts, New Jersey 1999. Open Google Scholar
  151. TREMBLAY, LUC. B. An egalitarian defense of proportionality based-balancing, in: International Journal of Constitutional Law 12 2014, 864-890. Open Google Scholar
  152. TSAKYRAKIS, STAVROS, Proportionality: an assault to human rights? in: International Journal of Constitutional Law 7 2009, 468-493. Open Google Scholar
  153. VIEIRA DE ANDRADE, JOSÉ CARLOS, Os Direitos Fundamentais na Constituição Portuguesa de 1976, 3. Aufl., Coimbra, 2004. Open Google Scholar
  154. VINNING, JOSEPH, Authority and Responsibility: The Jurisprudence of Deference, in: Administrative Law Review 43 1991, 135-146. Open Google Scholar
  155. WALDRON, JEREMY, Law and Disagreement, New York 1999. Open Google Scholar
  156. WALDRON, JEREMY, Principles of Legislation, in: Baumann, Richard W. (ed.) The Least Examined Branch: the role of Legislature in Constitutional States, Cambridge 2006, 15-32. Open Google Scholar
  157. WALDRON, JEREMY, Torture and Positive Law: Jurisprudence for the White House, in: Columbia Law Review 105 2005, 1681-1750. Open Google Scholar
  158. WALDRON, JEREMY, The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review, in: Yale Law Journal 115 2006, 1346-1406. Open Google Scholar
  159. WALDRON, JEREMY, The Dignity of Legislation, Cambridge 1999. Open Google Scholar
  160. WEBER, GRÉGOIRE C. N., Proportionality, Balancing and the Cult of Constitutional Righjts Scholarship, in: Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 23 2010, 179-202. Open Google Scholar
  161. WEBER, GRÉGOIRE C. N., The Negotiable Constitution: On the Limitations of Rights, Cambridge 2009. Open Google Scholar
  162. WEINRIB, LORRAINE E., The postwar paradigm and American exceptionalism, in: Choudhry, Sujit (ed.), The Migration of Constitutional Ideas, Cambridge 2007, 84-112. Open Google Scholar
  163. YOUNG, ALISSON, In Defence of Due Deference in: Modern Law Review 72 2009, 554-580. Open Google Scholar
  164. YOUNG, ALISSON, Proportionality is dead: Long Live Proportionality!, in: Huscroft / Miller / Webber, Proportionality and the Rule of Law: Rights, Justification, Reasoning, Cambridge 2014, 43-66. Open Google Scholar

Similar publications

from the topics "Legal Philosophy & Legal Theory", "General Foundations of Law & Legal History", "Law General, Comprehensive Works and Collections"
Cover of book: Politische Autonomie
Book Titles No access
Jan-Reinard Sieckmann
Politische Autonomie
Cover of book: Die Grafschaft Henneberg und deren Aufteilung (1583–1660/61)
Book Titles No access
Maximilian Arnold
Die Grafschaft Henneberg und deren Aufteilung (1583–1660/61)
Cover of book: Faszination und Freiheit
Edited Book No access
Klaus Günther, Benno Zabel
Faszination und Freiheit
Cover of book: Law & Critique | Recht & Kritik
Edited Book Full access
Greta Olson, Christian Schmidt, Benno Zabel, Jochen Bung, Franziska Martinsen, Hanna Meißner
Law & Critique | Recht & Kritik
Cover of book: Die Rolle des Gerichts im Rahmen des Prozessvergleichs
Book Titles No access
Adomas Jankauskis
Die Rolle des Gerichts im Rahmen des Prozessvergleichs

Notice

This work is protected by copyright and may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Terms of Use and License Agreement. Any use of the work beyond this is expressly prohibited and will be prosecuted.

Give feedback

We welcome your feedback on content and features. Your message helps us to continuously improve our service.

Rating
Attach images
or drag and drop
PNG or JPG (max. 3 MB)

Welcome to Inlibra – Your Platform for Digital Professional Information

Nomos, C.H.Beck, VDI and over 100 other publishers combine their content here to create one of the largest platforms for digital professional information.

Research efficiently, cite long-term, use reliably – all united in one place.

Login

Forgotten your password?
Login via Open Athens
Don't have an account yet?
Register now

Cite publication

Download: RIS BibTex