超越比例原则:控制事实不确定性下的权利限制

Q2 Social Sciences Oslo Law Review Pub Date : 2023-04-04 DOI:10.18261/olr.9.2.1
Borja Sánchez Barroso
{"title":"超越比例原则:控制事实不确定性下的权利限制","authors":"Borja Sánchez Barroso","doi":"10.18261/olr.9.2.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The principle of proportionality is considered the main legal tool to control restrictive measures of rights, both in ordinary courts and at a constitutional level. In addition to its general limitations, new shortcomings of the principle have played a central role during the pandemic, questioning the principle's efficacy in situations of factual uncertainty, especially in technically or scientifically complex contexts. This article analyses this efficacy problemand exemplifies it with specific measures adopted to prevent COVID-19. It also analyses potential ways to counter those shortcomings, such as refining the principle itself, emphasising judicial deference to legislative and executive powers, or adopting prior decisions as to the information that must be taken into account in case of uncertainty. Finally, the article proposes some additional checks that could complement the culture of justification promoted by the principle and strengthen the control of public powers when restricting rights under conditions of uncertainty. Copyright © 2023 Author(s).","PeriodicalId":36793,"journal":{"name":"Oslo Law Review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Beyond the Principle of Proportionality: Controlling the Restriction of Rights under Factual Uncertainty\",\"authors\":\"Borja Sánchez Barroso\",\"doi\":\"10.18261/olr.9.2.1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The principle of proportionality is considered the main legal tool to control restrictive measures of rights, both in ordinary courts and at a constitutional level. In addition to its general limitations, new shortcomings of the principle have played a central role during the pandemic, questioning the principle's efficacy in situations of factual uncertainty, especially in technically or scientifically complex contexts. This article analyses this efficacy problemand exemplifies it with specific measures adopted to prevent COVID-19. It also analyses potential ways to counter those shortcomings, such as refining the principle itself, emphasising judicial deference to legislative and executive powers, or adopting prior decisions as to the information that must be taken into account in case of uncertainty. Finally, the article proposes some additional checks that could complement the culture of justification promoted by the principle and strengthen the control of public powers when restricting rights under conditions of uncertainty. Copyright © 2023 Author(s).\",\"PeriodicalId\":36793,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oslo Law Review\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oslo Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18261/olr.9.2.1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oslo Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18261/olr.9.2.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

相称性原则被认为是在普通法院和宪法一级控制权利限制措施的主要法律工具。除了一般限制外,该原则的新缺点在大流行期间发挥了核心作用,质疑该原则在事实不确定情况下的效力,特别是在技术或科学复杂的情况下。本文分析了这一功效问题,并举例说明了预防COVID-19所采取的具体措施。它还分析了克服这些缺点的可能方法,例如改进原则本身,强调司法对立法和行政权力的尊重,或对在不确定情况下必须考虑的资料作出事先决定。最后,本文提出了一些附加的制约,可以补充该原则所倡导的正当文化,在不确定条件下限制权利时加强对公权力的控制。版权所有©2023作者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Beyond the Principle of Proportionality: Controlling the Restriction of Rights under Factual Uncertainty
The principle of proportionality is considered the main legal tool to control restrictive measures of rights, both in ordinary courts and at a constitutional level. In addition to its general limitations, new shortcomings of the principle have played a central role during the pandemic, questioning the principle's efficacy in situations of factual uncertainty, especially in technically or scientifically complex contexts. This article analyses this efficacy problemand exemplifies it with specific measures adopted to prevent COVID-19. It also analyses potential ways to counter those shortcomings, such as refining the principle itself, emphasising judicial deference to legislative and executive powers, or adopting prior decisions as to the information that must be taken into account in case of uncertainty. Finally, the article proposes some additional checks that could complement the culture of justification promoted by the principle and strengthen the control of public powers when restricting rights under conditions of uncertainty. Copyright © 2023 Author(s).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Oslo Law Review
Oslo Law Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Norwayʼs New Transparency Act: An Overview in Light of International Trends A Sky Full of Stars, Constellations, Satellites and More!Legal Issues for a ‘Darkʼ Sky Liability for Shareholders and Directors of Limited Liability Companies, for CSR-Related Breaches Liability for Shareholders and Directors of Limited Liability Companies, for CSR-Related Breaches The Norwegian Legislation on Social Sustainability: An Overview of the Transparency Act
×
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