Constitutional principles and values as a subject of balance (proportionality): to the question of the complexities of the theoretical and practical content

 
PIIS102694520013236-0-1
DOI10.31857/S102694520013236-0
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Occupation: head of the Department of Constitutional and Administrative Law, faculty of law
Affiliation: Saint Petersburg state agrarian University
Address: Russian Federation,
Journal nameGosudarstvo i pravo
EditionIssue 1
Pages135-142
Abstract

The article analyzes the approach to the implementation of constitutional principles and values that has developed in the practice of judicial bodies of constitutional norm control, called the balance (proportionality) method. The author summarizes the doctrinal ideas about the peculiarities of this method in various legal systems, concludes that the doctrine and practice of Constitutional Law are not yet ready to resolve a number of contradictions related to the use of the balance (proportionality) method

Keywordscompetition of constitutional principles, balance of values, constitutional norm control, justification of a court decision
Received20.12.2019
Publication date05.02.2021
Number of characters29970
Cite  
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 597

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Alexy R. The concept and reality of law (reply to legal positivism) / transl. from German A.N. Laptev, F. Kalshoyer; scientific. ed. by T.F. Yakovleva. M., 2011. P. 16. 103 (in Russ.).

2. Basu D.D. Constitutional Law of India. M., 1986. P. 245, 246 (in Russ.).

3. Belov S.A. Whether rational discourse to justify the value choice in law // Jurisprudence. 2014. No. 5 (316). P. 232 (in Russ.).

4. Leontiev D.A. Values of society and values of the individual. Thesis of reports. URL: http://iphras.ru/page52169422.htm (in Russ.).

5. Sivitsky V.A. Balance of constitutional values as a subject and method of activity of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation // Compromise in law: theory, practice, technique: collection of articles based on the materials of the international scientific and practical conference (Nizhny Novgorod, May 29 - 30, 2014). N. Novgorod, 2014. Vol. 2. P. 290 - 299 (in Russ.).

6. Khorunzhiy S.N. Constitutional ideology of the balance of constitutional values // Legal epistemology. 2016. No. 3. P. 78–85 (in Russ.).

7. Shugurov M.V. Balance and disbalance as categories of legal reality: system-synergetic approach // Russ. journal of legal research. 2016. No. 1(6). P. 88 (in Russ.).

8. Aleinikoff T.A. Constitutional Law in the Age of Balancing, 96 Yale L.J. (1987). P. 945, 948, 949. URL: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylj/vol96/iss5/1

9. Alexy R. Balancing, constitutional review, and representation // International Journal of Constitutional Law. Vol. 3. Issue 4. 1 October 2005. P. 573, 575. URL: https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/3/4/572/792008

10. Alexy R. Proportionality, constitutional law, and sub-constitutional law: A reply to Aharon Barak // International Journal of Constitutional Law. Vol. 16. Issue 3. 9 November 2018. P. 871–879.

11. Antieau Chester James. The Jurisprudence of Interests as a Method of Constitutional Adjudication, 27 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 823 (1977). URL: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol27/iss4/10

12. Barak Aharon. Proportionality: Constitutional Rights and their Limitations (Cambridge Studies in Constitutional Law). Cambridge, 2012. P. 340–349.

13. Benvindo J.Z. Balancing Within the Context of German Constitutionalism: The Bundesverfassungsgericht’s Shift to Activism / chapter from: On the limits of constitutional adjudication: Deconstructing balancing and judicial activism. 2010. P. 31–81.

14. Dickinson J. The Law behind the Law // Columbia Law Review. 1929. No. 3. P. 296 - 315.

15. Faigman David L. Madisonian Balancing: A Theory of Constitutional Adjudication, 88 Nw. U. L. Rev. 641. 1994. URL: http://repository.uchastings.edu/faculty_scholarship/870.

16. Gunther G. Constitutional Law. 11th ed. 1985. P. 130.

17. Haines C.G. The American Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy. 2d ed. 1932; Boudin Louis B. Government by Judiciary, 2 vols. New York, 1932.

18. Kommers Donald P. The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany. Duke University Press, 1997. P. 315 - 318.

19. Laurent B. Frantz. Is the First Amendment Law? A Reply to Professor Mendelson // 51 CALIF. L. REV. 729, 748 (1963).

20. Paradoxes of Legal Science by Benjamin N. Cardozo: Review / by Rousseau A. Burch // Michigan Law Review. Vol. 27. No. 6 (Apr., 1929). P. 637 - 649.

21. Pound R. Discretion, Dispensation and Mitigation: The Problem of the individual special case // 35 N.Y. University Law Review. 925 (1960). P. 925.

22. Ryssdal R. Opinion: The Coming Age of the European Convention on Human Rights // EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS LAW REVIEW. 1996. P. 26.

23. Scanlan Alfred L. The Passing of Justice Murphy-The Conscience of a Court // 25 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 7, 38 (1949).

24. Stevens John Paul. Judicial Activism: Ensuring the Powers and Freedoms Conceived by the Framers for Today's World // C.B.A. REC., Oct. 16, 2002, at 26.

25. Stone H.F. The Common Law in the United States, 50 HARV. L. REV. 4, 10 (1936). P. 20.

26. Urbina, Francisco J. A Critique of Proportionality and Balancing. Cambridge, 2017.

27. Veel Paul-Erik N. Incommensurability, Proportionality, and Rational Legal Decision-Making // Law and Ethics of Human Rights. Is. 4 (2), 2010. P. 178 - 228.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up