Constitutional Statecraft in Asian Courts by Yvonne Tew. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020. 272 pp. Hardcover: £80.00.

Q3 Social Sciences Asian Journal of Comparative Law Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI:10.1017/asjcl.2021.25
R. Abeyratne
{"title":"Constitutional Statecraft in Asian Courts by Yvonne Tew. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020. 272 pp. Hardcover: £80.00.","authors":"R. Abeyratne","doi":"10.1017/asjcl.2021.25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Yvonne Tew ’ s Constitutional Statecraft in Asian Courts is a careful and detailed study of constitutionalism in Malaysia and Singapore. The book combines history, theory, and practice to offer a nuanced account of how judicial power has evolved in both countries and provides a framework for how it can be harnessed further in the service of constitutional democracy. The book begins with a theoretical section that overviews the major literature in this area. 1 Tew is critical – rightly so – of categorical statements about the nature of judicial power and of constitutional rights. She helpfully deconstructs and critiques several dichotomies including the universal versus relativist conceptions of human rights, which was prominent in the ‘ Asian values ’ debate of the 1980s and 1990s, and still has resonances today. 2 This is the idea, advanced by Lee Kuan Yew and Mahathir Mohammad, among others, that Asian cultures place higher value on commu-nity and social order than on ‘ Western ’ notions of individual liberty. 3 In addition to essentialising the values of a large and diverse continent, Tew points out that ‘ Asian values ’ is susceptible to ideo-logical capture, particularly in the context of justifying the policies of authoritarian regimes. 4 Tew is also skeptical of the dichotomy she observes in the existing literature between ‘ herculean ’ and ‘ Sisyphean ’ conceptions of the judicial role. 5 Judges, as Tew shows, are neither all-knowing heroic figures who consistently reach the ‘ correct ’ result, nor are they doomed to perpetual failure. Indeed, by presenting a contextual analysis of judicial strategy in the enterprise of state building in these two postcolonial states, the book charts a middle path for judges that is informed by the political environment. National-level politics in both countries have been dominated by a single party – the Barisan National (BN) coalition in Malaysia and the People ’ s Action Party (PAP) in","PeriodicalId":39405,"journal":{"name":"Asian Journal of Comparative Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Journal of Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/asjcl.2021.25","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Yvonne Tew ’ s Constitutional Statecraft in Asian Courts is a careful and detailed study of constitutionalism in Malaysia and Singapore. The book combines history, theory, and practice to offer a nuanced account of how judicial power has evolved in both countries and provides a framework for how it can be harnessed further in the service of constitutional democracy. The book begins with a theoretical section that overviews the major literature in this area. 1 Tew is critical – rightly so – of categorical statements about the nature of judicial power and of constitutional rights. She helpfully deconstructs and critiques several dichotomies including the universal versus relativist conceptions of human rights, which was prominent in the ‘ Asian values ’ debate of the 1980s and 1990s, and still has resonances today. 2 This is the idea, advanced by Lee Kuan Yew and Mahathir Mohammad, among others, that Asian cultures place higher value on commu-nity and social order than on ‘ Western ’ notions of individual liberty. 3 In addition to essentialising the values of a large and diverse continent, Tew points out that ‘ Asian values ’ is susceptible to ideo-logical capture, particularly in the context of justifying the policies of authoritarian regimes. 4 Tew is also skeptical of the dichotomy she observes in the existing literature between ‘ herculean ’ and ‘ Sisyphean ’ conceptions of the judicial role. 5 Judges, as Tew shows, are neither all-knowing heroic figures who consistently reach the ‘ correct ’ result, nor are they doomed to perpetual failure. Indeed, by presenting a contextual analysis of judicial strategy in the enterprise of state building in these two postcolonial states, the book charts a middle path for judges that is informed by the political environment. National-level politics in both countries have been dominated by a single party – the Barisan National (BN) coalition in Malaysia and the People ’ s Action Party (PAP) in
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
《亚洲法院的宪政治国之道》,作者:伊冯·图。牛津:牛津大学出版社,2020。272页,精装版:80英镑。
陶的《亚洲法院宪政》是对马来西亚和新加坡宪政的一次细致的研究。这本书结合了历史、理论和实践,对两国司法权力的演变进行了细致入微的描述,并为如何进一步利用司法权力为宪政民主服务提供了一个框架。这本书从一个理论部分开始,概述了这一领域的主要文献。1 Tew对关于司法权力和宪法权利性质的明确声明持批评态度,这是正确的。她有益地解构和批评了一些二分法,包括普遍与相对主义的人权概念,这在20世纪80年代和90年代的“亚洲价值观”辩论中很突出,至今仍有共鸣。2这是李光耀和马哈蒂尔·穆罕默德等人提出的观点,即亚洲文化更重视社区和社会秩序,而不是“西方”的个人自由观念。3除了强调一个庞大而多样的大陆的价值观外,Tew还指出,“亚洲价值观”容易受到意识形态的影响,特别是在为威权政权的政策辩护的背景下。4 Tew也对她在现有文献中观察到的司法角色的“赫库勒式”和“西西弗式”概念之间的二分法持怀疑态度。正如图所示,评委们既不是无所不知的英雄人物,也不是注定要永远失败的人。事实上,通过对这两个后殖民国家的国家建设中的司法战略进行语境分析,本书为法官描绘了一条受政治环境影响的中间道路。两国的国家政治都由一个政党主导——马来西亚的国民阵线和马来西亚的人民行动党
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
Asian Journal of Comparative Law
Asian Journal of Comparative Law Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: The Asian Journal of Comparative Law (AsJCL) is the leading forum for research and discussion of the law and legal systems of Asia. It embraces work that is theoretical, empirical, socio-legal, doctrinal or comparative that relates to one or more Asian legal systems, as well as work that compares one or more Asian legal systems with non-Asian systems. The Journal seeks articles which display an intimate knowledge of Asian legal systems, and thus provide a window into the way they work in practice. The AsJCL is an initiative of the Asian Law Institute (ASLI), an association established by thirteen leading law schools in Asia and with a rapidly expanding membership base across Asia and in other regions around the world.
期刊最新文献
International Sanctions and the Rule of Law How Can Malaysian Courts Consistently Perform Meaningful Constitutional Rights Review? Lessons from Past Cases and the Way Forward Confused Purposes and Inconsistent Adjudication: An Assessment of Bail Decisions in Delhi's Courts Soviet Legacy of Vietnam's Intellectual Property Law: Big Brother is (No Longer) Watching You – CORRIGENDUM Conceptualising State-Centric Mediation: An Analysis of China's Foreign Investment Complaints Mechanism – ERRATUM
×
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