Has the UK Supreme Court Become More Restrained in Public Law Cases?

IF 1.5 4区 社会学 Q1 LAW Modern Law Review Pub Date : 2024-01-11 DOI:10.1111/1468-2230.12866
Lewis Graham
{"title":"Has the UK Supreme Court Become More Restrained in Public Law Cases?","authors":"Lewis Graham","doi":"10.1111/1468-2230.12866","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, a number of academics, judges and politicians have noted that the UK Supreme Court has adopted a more restrained approach when it comes to public law than it had done previously. This article assesses the quantitative and qualitative evidence for this apparent conservative turn. It finds that, in a number of important respects, the Court has indeed adopted a more restrained approach to public law issues in recent years. However, conservatism and caution are not apparent across the board, and there are a number of areas in which the approach of the Court has been anything but restrained. Overall, the Court should not be considered ideologically conservative, nor should it be deemed constitutionally supine. Rather, it is most accurate to suggest that the Court is basing its judgments on a vision of the law rooted in the tradition of political constitutionalism.","PeriodicalId":47530,"journal":{"name":"Modern Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Modern Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12866","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In recent years, a number of academics, judges and politicians have noted that the UK Supreme Court has adopted a more restrained approach when it comes to public law than it had done previously. This article assesses the quantitative and qualitative evidence for this apparent conservative turn. It finds that, in a number of important respects, the Court has indeed adopted a more restrained approach to public law issues in recent years. However, conservatism and caution are not apparent across the board, and there are a number of areas in which the approach of the Court has been anything but restrained. Overall, the Court should not be considered ideologically conservative, nor should it be deemed constitutionally supine. Rather, it is most accurate to suggest that the Court is basing its judgments on a vision of the law rooted in the tradition of political constitutionalism.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
英国最高法院在审理公法案件时是否变得更加克制?
近年来,许多学者、法官和政治家都注意到,英国最高法院在公法问题上采取了比以往更加克制的态度。本文评估了这一明显保守转向的定量和定性证据。文章发现,在许多重要方面,最高法院近年来确实对公法问题采取了更为克制的态度。然而,保守与谨慎并不是一概而论的,在一些领域,法院的做法并不克制。总体而言,不应认为法院在意识形态上是保守的,也不应认为它在宪法上是顺从的。相反,最准确的说法是,法院是根据植根于政治宪法主义传统的法律理念做出判决的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
61
期刊最新文献
Using AI to Mitigate the Employee Misclassification Problem StinePiilgaardPorner Nielsen and OleHammerslev (eds), Transformations of European Welfare States and Social Rights: Regulation, Professionals, and Citizens, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2024, x + 226, pb £34.99 and open access Performative Environmental Law Thinking Legally about Remedy in Judicial Review: R (on the application of Imam) v London Borough of Croydon Legal Parenthood, Novel Reproductive Practices, and the Disruption of Reproductive Biosex
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1