Judicial Review

Judicial Review in Law

J.B. Grossman , in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001

Judicial review is the institutional capacity of courts of constabulary to determine the constitutional validity of actions taken by either coordinate or junior branches of government. It is an outgrowth of efforts to limit the powers of those authorized to interpret both sacred and secular texts, and to ensure that laws, and the acts of those empowered to enforce them, volition exist consistent with the basic values of a society and its basic governing structures. Enabling government while at the same fourth dimension protecting against the potential abuse of governmental power is an age-former, and continuing, dilemma of a constitutional democracies. In modern democracies, however, judicial review presents its own dilemma—how to rationalize limits on majority rule. This recognition of the inherent tensions between democracy and the dominion of law, is often referred to—at least in the American context—equally the 'counter-majoritarian difficulty.' Only as judicial review and constitutionalism take expanded to a large number of countries, and with the ascension of supranational courts, attempts to accomplish a workable and legitimate balance that respects both democratic values and individual rights are at present a worldwide phenomenon.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://world wide web.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0080430767027935

Our Constitutional Structure of Government

Nan D. Hunter , in The Law of Emergencies (Second Edition), 2018

Judicial Review

The Founders understood judicial review equally an essential component of freedom. According to the Federalist No. 78:

[T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body betwixt the people and the legislature, in club, among other things, to keep the latter inside the limits assigned to their authorization…

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, equally a fundamental law. Information technology therefore belongs to them to ascertain its pregnant, likewise every bit the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of grade, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents…

The courts can review laws in two important ways.

●

Courts have the power to declare whether acts of the legislature (Congress or a country legislature) violate the Constitution.

●

Courts as well have the power to translate the meaning of statutory text when there is ambiguity.

If the Supreme Court finds that a statute has a particular meaning and Congress does not agree with the Court'south estimation, Congress can remove the ambiguity by amending the law to clarify its meaning. Assuming that ambiguity was the but problem with the statute, Congress has the terminal word. If, however, the Supreme Court finds that a statute is unconstitutional, Congress' only option is to enact a new statute in line with the criteria set out by the Court, because the Supreme Court has the final discussion on the meaning of the Constitution. (For more most the relationship betwixt federal and state courts, see Affiliate 4.)

Chief Justice John Marshall crystallized the principle of judicial review in the opinion that he wrote for the Supreme Court in 1 of the most famous and important of all Supreme Court cases. In 1803, the Court articulated the principle of judicial supremacy in interpreting the Constitution, a principle that has endured as the tertiary essential component of the arrangement of checks and balances. In Marbury 5 Madison, the Court wrote

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department [branch] to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must of necessity expound and interpret that dominion. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the performance of each.

So if a law [passed by Congress] exist in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a item case, and so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the police, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the police force; the courtroom must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

Since Marbury five. Madison, the principle of judicial review has get a central facet of American governance. Post-obit is an excerpt from the famous "Watergate tapes" case, in which President Richard Nixon sought to quash a amendment issue for tapes and other materials relevant to the role of White House officials in the Watergate break-in.

United states of america v. Nixon

U.S. Supreme Court, 1974. 418 US 683

Chief Justice Burger delivered the opinion of the court.

… [W]e turn to the claim that the subpoena should exist quashed considering it demands 'confidential conversations betwixt a President and his close advisors that information technology would be inconsistent with the public interest to produce.' The offset contention is a broad merits that the separation of powers doctrine precludes judicial review of a President's merits of privilege…

In the operation of assigned constitutional duties each co-operative of the Government must initially interpret the Constitution, and the interpretation of its powers by any co-operative is due great respect from the others. The President's counsel, as we have noted, reads the Constitution as providing an absolute privilege of confidentiality for all Presidential communications. Many decisions of this Court, however, accept unequivocally reaffirmed the holding of Marbury v. Madison, that '(i)t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial section to say what the police is.'

No holding of the Court has defined the telescopic of judicial power specifically relating to the enforcement of a subpoena for confidential Presidential communications for use in a criminal prosecution, but other exercises of power by the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch take been found invalid as in disharmonize with the Constitution. In a serial of cases, the Court interpreted the explicit amnesty conferred by express provisions of the Constitution on Members of the House and Senate by the Speech or Argue Clause, U.S. Const. Art. I, § 6.

Since this Court has consistently exercised the ability to construe and delineate claims arising under limited powers, it must follow that the Court has authorization to interpret claims with respect to powers alleged to derive from enumerated powers.

Our system of government 'requires that federal courts on occasion interpret the Constitution in a mode at variance with the structure given the document by some other branch.' And in Bakery five. Carr, the Court stated:

'(D)eciding whether a matter has in any measure out been committed by the Constitution to another co-operative of government, or whether the action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate practice in ramble interpretation, and is a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.'

All the same the deference each branch must accordance the others, the 'judicial Power of the Us' vested in the federal courts by Art. Iii, § 1, of the Constitution can no more be shared with the Executive Co-operative than the Chief Executive, for example, tin can share with the Judiciary the veto power, or the Congress share with the Judiciary the power to override a Presidential veto. Any other determination would be contrary to the basic concept of separation of powers and the checks and balances that flow from the scheme of a tripartite authorities. The Federalist, No. 47. We therefore reaffirm that it is the province and duty of this Courtroom 'to say what the law is' with respect to the merits of privilege presented in this case. Marbury v. Madison.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128042755000012

Public Health Law I

Nan D. Hunter , in The Law of Emergencies (2d Edition), 2018

Judicial Review

The regulations do non provide for any judicial review of CDC actions. Instead they comprise the statement that "Naught in this department shall touch on the constitutional or statutory rights of individuals to obtain judicial review of their Federal detention."

Recall from Chapter nine, The Constitution and Individual Rights, that anyone beingness detained by governmental potency may seek a writ of habeas corpus, which is the type of review to which this provision refers. Is this adequate protection for someone under an lodge of quarantine, isolation, or provisional release? A number of public health police experts objected to this provision when the proposed regulations were published for public commentary. (Come across Chapter 6, Federal Agencies, for a description of how the Administrative Procedures Act works.) Still, the CDC declined to modify what became the final language. How else might the agency accept dealt with the question of judicial review? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the differing approaches?

Read total chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/commodity/pii/B9780128042755000139

Recordkeeping and juridical governance

Livia lacovino , in Archives, 2005

Government commercialization and access rights

The administrative law regime, which includes judicial review, administrative appeals and Ombudsman legislation in which FOI is a key feature, may be of limited use in providing admission to government information in relation to the commercial activities of government, for instance, in Australia 'government concern enterprises' (GBEs) are increasingly exempted from administrative law, including FOI, as it is seen as placing them at a competitive disadvantage. Outsourcing or 'contractual ization' of public administration has ted to the diminution of rights available to citizens for accessing government information. Public rights to records cease in the case of privatization, which involves the selling of assets and entitlements of a government-endemic corporation to the private sector, completely or partially. Equally government functions are further privatized FOI will somewhen be express to a macerated surface area of government activeness.

Figure 10.3. In 2004 Victorians were surprised to acquire that over 30 years' worth of 'Guthrie cards' – used to collect claret samples from newborn babies for screening for rare diseases – are now owned by a private company.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://world wide web.sciencedirect.com/scientific discipline/article/pii/B978187693884050010X

Environment Regulation: Legal Aspects

Thou. Wintertime , in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001

6 Legal Protection

Regulation normally constitutes a two-tiered relationship between the addressees and the government. In rule of law systems judicial review of this relationship is provided. Depending on the system, legal recourse may be granted against regulation in the form of individual administrative acts, also as sublegal acts and even laws. In ER there are addressees who by implication take the right of entreatment, and the situation with this kind of regulation is further complicated because information technology is characterized past a three-tiered relationship involving third parties (neighbors, etc.). These also enquire for legal protection against environmental risk. Ceremonious law remedies directed at the polluter, such as injunctive reliefs and tort or strict liability, come aslope public law remedies directed at the authoritative organs, such every bit the activeness for quashing an authoritative human activity (e.1000., a structure authorisation for a dangerous installation), or for issuing an administrative deed (e.g., an order to prohibit the marketing of a toxic substance).

These remedies are, nonetheless, confronted with the problem typical of ER that ofttimes the environmental damage reaches beyond the individual sphere of the afflicted tertiary party (consider the devastation of a biotope on propertied land implicating the extinction of a species), or that the 3rd party is merely indirectly or morally affected (contamination by pesticides of groundwater which may be used for drinking h2o purposes, destruction of a forest resort frequented past birdwatchers) (Prieur 1996, p. 842). Legal systems differ in the extent they open up their legal remedies up to those 'trans-private' interests. This may be done past allowing other agents than the private to defend the related collective interest, and by extending the scope of legal arguments to collective concerns. In the realm of liability Brazilian law, for instance, allows for an action called 'civil-public' which tin can exist filed by the public prosecutor every bit well every bit by ecology associations for restoration of or compensation for ecological harm (Leme Machado 1998, p. 290). Every bit to tertiary party appeal against the administrative authorization of unsafe activities, French and English language law, for case, only require the plaintiff to prove to be affected in a factual interest (Winter 1996, p. 129), whereas according to the narrower German concept the plaintiff must show that a subjective correct or at least an involvement individually protected by constabulary was violated (Kloepfer 1998, p. 510). US police takes a heart position past requiring that (a) the plaintiff's factual involvement is affected and (b) this interest lies within the zone of interests protected or regulated by the relevant law (Findley and Farber 1999, p. 78). The overall European trend points in the same direction.

Legal systems differ also with regard to the density of judicial review of administrative action. Some reduce court review to errors in law (Us, UK, France) whilst others extend it to errors in fact (Federal republic of germany). Case police force has, withal, more and more blurred this line. The overall exercise has get to reduce or extend court checking, depending on whether the previous authoritative proceeding was courtroom-like or not, if the matter involved complex technical, prognostic or evaluative questions or not, etc. (Findley and Farber 1999, p. 120, Kloepfer 1998, p. 532).

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scientific discipline/article/pii/B0080430767028333

Constitutional Courts

B.-O. Bryde , in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001

Constitutional Courts (CCs) are specialized courts with jurisdiction over constitutional matters. In contrast to the American system of judicial review, CCs based on Kelsen's Austrian model are the issue of constitutional design. The rise of CCs began after WW II and gained momentum in recent processes of constitutional transition. The rules for the selection of judges seek to reconcile autonomous legitimacy and safeguards for independence. CCs' jurisdiction typically includes judicial review of legislation and arbitrament of ramble disputes. Individuals may have access in human rights cases. Democratic theory questions the legitimacy of CCs but they appear to be a workable model to reconcile majority dominion with safeguards against its corruption if the ability of CCs is constrained by 'judicial restraint.' In folklore of law CCs are then singled-out from other courts that sociolegal findings near judicial behavior are not necessarily applicable. Despite the politicized appointment procedure institutional interest forces, CCs to prove their independence. To a certain extent they have given up the ideal-typical judicial style of determination making for a political one (e.g., by beingness active rather than reactive, broad structure of open-textured constitutional texts and flexible forms of judicial determination-making).

Read full chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0080430767027923

Botnet Detection: Tools and Techniques

Craig A. Schiller , ... Michael Cross , in Botnets, 2007

Forensics Techniques and Tools for Botnet Detection

The field of digital forensics is concerned with the awarding of scientific methodology to gathering and presenting testify from digital sources to investigate criminal or unauthorized activity, originally for judicial review.

The forensic process at the judiciary level involves strict procedures to maintain the admissibility and integrity of evidence. Fifty-fifty for internal investigations, you lot should work as closely to those procedures as is practical, in case of later legal or administrative complications.

There is no single, simple approach to investigating a suspected botnet. Make the best of all the resources that can help you lot out, from spam and abuse notifications to the logs from your network and system administration tools.

Automatic reports generated from log reports past tools like Swatch don't just help yous monitor the health of your systems; in the outcome of a security breach, they give you an immediate first on investigating what'southward happened.

Read full chapter

URL:

https://world wide web.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978159749135850007X

Constitutionalism

Due west.F. White potato , in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001

Constitutionalism, therefore, demands 'a organisation of regularized restraints [across free elections] upon those who practice political ability' (Friedrich 1964, p. 17). A ramble text with a bill of rights and judicial review are the most visible just not the sole constitutionalist restraints. Many constitutionalists, like well-nigh democratic theorists, besides emphasize the importance of political culture. As James Madison told the Outset Congress when he introduced the Pecker of Rights.

It may exist idea that all paper barriers against the ability of the community are too weak to be worthy of attention … [Y]et, every bit they have a trend to print some caste of respect for them, to establish the public opinion in their favor, and rouse the attending of the whole community, information technology may be one means to control the bulk from those acts to which they might otherwise be inclined (Annals of Congress, I, 440f, 1789).

Read full chapter

URL:

https://world wide web.sciencedirect.com/science/commodity/pii/B0080430767011190

Supreme Courts

C.R. Epp , in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001

1.1 The Main Types

Supreme courts take a broad diverseness of forms, and are related to other political institutions in a wide variety of ways, but nonetheless fall inside 2 main types reflecting the broad division between the common law and civil police traditions (see Legal Systems, Nomenclature of ; Common Law ; Civil Law ). In common-constabulary countries, a single national supreme court has general jurisdiction over a wide range of cases in about all areas of the law arising in lower courts. These courts are frankly recognized as law-making bodies (through their evolution of caselaw), and traditionally have been valued for their roles in checking executive discretion and lending coherence and consistency to their country's caselaw. They do these roles almost exclusively in cases arising out of concrete disputes betwixt two or more parties; the losing political party in a lower courtroom may appeal the conclusion to a superior courtroom, and a small proportion of these appeals ultimately reaches the country's supreme court where review, in theory, is confined to disputes over law (and not facts) (see Appeals: Legal ). This model is found today in countries throughout the onetime British empire, especially in the United States, Canada, Australia, India, and in Africa, peculiarly Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, equally well every bit S Africa.

In some common-police force countries, specially the USA and countries post-obit its model, the supreme court possesses the power of judicial review to strike down legislation every bit unconstitutional, but typically just incidentally to resolving disputes between two or more than parties (a arrangement known equally 'concrete review') (see Judicial Review in Law ). In other common-law countries—those with parliamentary sovereignty, particularly Britain—the supreme court has no such ability only yet exercises relatively broad dominance to check administrative discretion. Following the enormous symbolic influence of the U.s.a. Supreme Court'south attack on racial segregation and its cosmos of new individual rights in the 1950s and 1960s, some supreme courts in mutual-law countries, particularly Canada and India, shifted markedly from the British to the American model by increasingly exercising the power of judicial review, particularly in the area of individual rights (Epp 1998; Knopff and Morton 1992). Under the growing influence of European police force, even the Appellate Committee of the Business firm of Lords, Britain's supreme court, has fabricated decisions that appear to exist edging toward a frank exercise of judicial review, a trend that is likely to be reinforced as Britain's new nib of rights gains authority.

Ceremonious law systems, by contrast, have been heavily influenced past the French Revolution's efforts to limit the ability of courts and to foreclose the development of an independent, powerful, and active judiciary headed by a single supreme court. Consequently, the supreme judicial power in many civil law countries is divided into three (or more) singled-out institutions, each with a specialized jurisdiction (Jacob et al., 1996, Merryman 1985). Thus, in France, the ordinary judiciary, which is headed upward by the Court of Cassation, traditionally has been strictly forbidden from exercising judicial review or in whatever other way challenging legislative or administrative acts. The value of some mechanism for checking administrative acts was chop-chop recognized, however, resulting in the creation of a separate administrative court, the Contentious Section of the Quango of State (hereafter, the Council of Land), which at present functions as the supreme court for the administrative court system. With the growing interest in constitutionalism after Globe War Two, many civil law countries added a separate constitutional court with the power of judicial review over legislation, reflecting the belief that the ordinary supreme court was insufficiently statesmanlike, also conservative, or as well tied to a prior regime, to give meaningful effect to constitutional provisions (Cappelletti 1989, p. 145, Favoreu 1990, Merryman and Vigoriti 1967) (encounter Constitutional Courts ). In countries in which the ramble court decides challenges to existing laws, that court and the ordinary supreme courtroom take at times developed sharply conflicting interpretations of the validity of particular laws, which has led to significant tensions between these courts (encounter e.g., Krug 1997, Merryman and Vigoriti 1967). The civil law model—with multiple courts of last resort—has been adopted throughout much of Europe, many parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America.

The strength of the pressures favoring agile supreme courtroom participation in the policy process are axiomatic in the history of the French organization. The French Court of Cassation originated equally a legislative tribunal with power only to quash incorrect judicial interpretations of police force, but over time information technology adopted a forthright appellate function and eventually was formally converted into the ordinary court system's supreme court; information technology has since engaged in significant judicial policy-making (Merryman 1985); (for parallels in Britain, meet Stevens 1978). Similarly, although the Quango of Country is not a function of the regular judiciary, it has evolved to a position of bang-up independence within the administrative branch, adjudicates the legal claims of individuals against the country bureaucracy, exercises judicial review over administrative regulations (which institute a substantial proportion of French law), and has served as a model for supreme courts elsewhere (Chocolate-brown and Bell 1993, Loma 1993, Merryman 1985). Although formally there is no doctrine of stare decisis in civil law systems, in practice the decisions of the Courtroom of Cassation and the Council of State gain broad adherence in lower courts and found a body of 'jurisprudence' that is similar in many ways to caselaw (Merryman 1996).

The institutional structures of supreme courts in Latin America mix elements of the U.s.a. and French models (see eastward.g., Barker 1986). Thus, virtually Latin-American countries have a single supreme court with the power of judicial review and with full general jurisdiction over appeals from a diverseness of ordinary courts, but many deny to the inferior courts the ability of judicial review, and even the supreme courtroom'south power of judicial review in nigh of these countries is limited to suspending the application of a constabulary in a item case, not invalidating the law itself. Some countries in the region follow the French model by denying the supreme court jurisdiction over the administrative courts; some countries' supreme courts hear ramble issues that are referred past the legislature, and Columbia has both a regular supreme courtroom and a separate ramble court.

Read full affiliate

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scientific discipline/commodity/pii/B0080430767027911

Constitutionalism, Comparative

H. Klug , in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001

iii Constitutions, Constitutionalism, and the Politics of Comparison

Comparative constitutionalism has shifted its emphasis from being a philosophical contend over the nature and course of expert government to a more than legal focus on the application and meaning of particular constitutional structures and rights, also every bit on the role of the judiciary in the project of express government (Sajo 1999 ). While the question of judicial review, and particularly the argue over the human relationship betwixt constitutionalism and commonwealth, dominated much of the academic soapbox in the twentieth century, the changing social and political context has brought greater attending to the interaction of constitutional ideas and institutions across different legal systems and national boundaries (Schedler et al. 1999, Hanafin and Williams 1999, Teubner 1997). This new tendency is outset to define a new field of comparative constitutionalism in theory and practice.

Comparative constitutionalism originated in western thought with Aristotle. In the Nicomachean Ethics (Aristotle 1996) he made a case for the comparative report of constitutions, arguing that by studying the 'constitutions we have collected … we shall mayhap be more likely to see which constitution is best, and how each must exist ordered, and what laws and customs it must utilise' (Aristotle 1181b, 13–22). Although only the Constitution of Athens (Aristotle 1996) remains from this early venture, the product of this analytical exercise is presented by Aristotle in The Politics (Aristotle 1996) and remains a principle source for the study of comparative regime, which all the same largely aims to construct a normative definition of institutional and political practices that are necessary in lodge to secure the skillful life.

The Aristotlean notion of constitutionalism, combining both a distinctive political order and the idea of a political regime in general is, co-ordinate to Carl Friedrich, the source of the 'modern idea of a constitution as the organization of a government, its offices, and the relation of the offices' (Friedrich 1968a). For Friedrich, however, this agreement, which recognizes all forms of government every bit exhibiting one or other grade of constitutionalism, was inadequate, for it incorporated dictatorial forms of governance inside the idea of constitutionalism. Instead, Friedrich (1968b), along with McIIwain (1947) and Wormuth (1949), emphasized the human relationship between constitutionalism and private liberty. For them, the essence of constitutionalism is not the organization of power but rather the thought of express power. From the thought of restraints on power to the separation and sectionalisation of power, the focus among Anglo-American theorists through the center decades of the twentieth century was on the guarantee of private liberty which they took to be the product of various means of limiting land ability (Pound 1957).

Writing first in the shadow of Nazi Federal republic of germany, then in the backwash of World State of war 2, and during the Cold War, Friedrich shifted the focus away from the comparative perspective inherent in the Aristotlean approach by posing the question: what is the political part of the constitution? From this starting point, Friedrich identified the protection of the individual member of the political community as the primary object of constitutional government, thus redefining constitutionalism every bit a 'modern phenomena' whose primal concern is the practice and theory of limited government (Friedrich 1968b). This focus empowered western theorists to turn down constitutional forms, particularly the 'symbolic' land socialist constitutions that failed to limit country ability, as aberrations of the constitutionalist tradition. Thus constitutionalism was again given a normative class, but at the cost of limiting the concept simply to those constitutional arrangements that successfully limited and controlled state power.

The failure of mail-colonial constitutions in Africa and other parts of the Third World, despite the inclusion of clauses formally limiting, separating, and controlling state power, produced an culling, 'socio-legal' approach to constitutionalism. Legal academics and political scientists argued that information technology was important to sympathise the economical and social context that adamant the effective constitution of power in these newly independent states (Ghai 1991). Taken further, this assay seeks to demonstrate how the underlying colonial and neocolonial weather condition of social organization, particularly the dual legal system and lack of land tenure security, restrict the capacity of civil order in Africa (Mamdani 1996, Shivji 1998). Without changes in these weather condition, it is argued, the notion of legal rights against the state and restraints on country power are ephemeral. Despite this disillusionment with formal constitutions and constitutionalism, struggles for democracy and interethnic strife in many developing countries has fueled a continual search for agreement the place constitutionalism may play in the reconstruction of mail-colonial states. Yash Ghai has sought constitutional solutions to problems of ethnic strife, both in his exercise as a ramble advisor and in his academic piece of work (Ghai 2000). He has as well applied this socio-legal perspective to analyzing the office of constitutional formulations produced to define the human relationship between the key government in People's republic of china and a reintegrated Hong Kong (Ghai 1997).

With the protection of the individual equally its primal goal, and the restraint of political power every bit its essential characteristic, the study of constitutionalism lost steam in the Anglo-American earth. It split in two singled-out directions, one legal, the other political. On the one hand, an interest in judicial review became the cardinal business concern of legal constitutionalists. Here the thought of comparative constitutionalism became, and remains so to some extent, equated with comparative constitutional law (Capelletti and Cohen 1979). In this context the comparative approach either focuses on the specific problem of judicial review, engaging in a comparison of the process of judicial review, exercised by courts effectually the globe (Cappeletti 1989), or compares the instance police of different jurisdictions in order to explore different means of the constitutional resolution of particular issues from the protection of property rights (Allen 2000) to abortion and hate speech (Jackson and Tushnet 1999). On the other hand, the fiscal crisis of the state and political conservatism in the late 1970s and 1980s led to a direct political attack on the role of the state in society. Despite challenges of cultural imperialism by those advocating an 'Asian model' of autocratic paternalism, or past those who argued that 'constitutionalism is largely a cultural phenomena and non simply the product of properly designed institutions and structures of government' (Franklin and Baun 1995), it was the emphasis upon the need to restrict land ability that created an intellectual and political environs in which the constitutional protection of individual rights and the institution of judicial review became the ascendant features of a post-Cold War international political civilisation.

The emphasis on the legal form of constitutionalism, and on judicial review in particular, shifted the focus onto the role of the judiciary, encouraging both a practical emphasis on judicial reform as well as in interest in the global expansion of judicial ability (Tate and Vallinder 1995). All the same, at the same time, the failure and even collapse of governments in Africa and the Asian economic crisis in the 1990s brought a renewed focus on the question of power and the demand for constructive governance. This focus raised the question of how the constitutional allocation of power should in fact empower the state to achieve a level of social coordination necessary for individual security and freedom.

Read total chapter

URL:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B008043076702859X