《加拿大宪章》尽管条款作为法院约束的制度化机制

IF 0.5 Q3 AREA STUDIES American Review of Canadian Studies Pub Date : 2023-01-02 DOI:10.1080/02722011.2023.2180954
A. Lawlor, Erin Crandall
{"title":"《加拿大宪章》尽管条款作为法院约束的制度化机制","authors":"A. Lawlor, Erin Crandall","doi":"10.1080/02722011.2023.2180954","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Recent interest in the use of section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has renewed political and scholarly attention to this unique device of constitutional politics. The notwithstanding clause is notable for being an opt-out clause exclusively available for government use, positioning it above the courts on key areas of rights. This article argues that the notwithstanding clause can be understood properly as an institutionalized mechanism of court curbing; that is, as an effort to limit a court’s power. We analyze uses of the notwithstanding clause using national and regional media coverage to understand how section 33 is framed, as well as an original dataset that investigates Canadians’ support of the notwithstanding clause and court curbing.","PeriodicalId":43336,"journal":{"name":"American Review of Canadian Studies","volume":"53 1","pages":"1 - 21"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Canadian Charter’s Notwithstanding Clause as an Institutionalized Mechanism of Court Curbing\",\"authors\":\"A. Lawlor, Erin Crandall\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02722011.2023.2180954\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Recent interest in the use of section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has renewed political and scholarly attention to this unique device of constitutional politics. The notwithstanding clause is notable for being an opt-out clause exclusively available for government use, positioning it above the courts on key areas of rights. This article argues that the notwithstanding clause can be understood properly as an institutionalized mechanism of court curbing; that is, as an effort to limit a court’s power. We analyze uses of the notwithstanding clause using national and regional media coverage to understand how section 33 is framed, as well as an original dataset that investigates Canadians’ support of the notwithstanding clause and court curbing.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43336,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Review of Canadian Studies\",\"volume\":\"53 1\",\"pages\":\"1 - 21\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Review of Canadian Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02722011.2023.2180954\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"AREA STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Review of Canadian Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02722011.2023.2180954","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要最近,人们对《加拿大权利与自由宪章》第33条的使用再次引起了政治和学术界对这一独特的宪法政治手段的关注。值得注意的是,尽管有条款是一项专门供政府使用的选择退出条款,在关键权利领域将其置于法院之上。本文认为,尽管条款可以被恰当地理解为一种制度化的法院制约机制;也就是说,为了限制法院的权力。我们利用国家和地区媒体的报道分析了尽管条款的使用,以了解第33条是如何制定的,以及调查加拿大人对尽管条款的支持和法院限制的原始数据集。
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
The Canadian Charter’s Notwithstanding Clause as an Institutionalized Mechanism of Court Curbing
ABSTRACT Recent interest in the use of section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has renewed political and scholarly attention to this unique device of constitutional politics. The notwithstanding clause is notable for being an opt-out clause exclusively available for government use, positioning it above the courts on key areas of rights. This article argues that the notwithstanding clause can be understood properly as an institutionalized mechanism of court curbing; that is, as an effort to limit a court’s power. We analyze uses of the notwithstanding clause using national and regional media coverage to understand how section 33 is framed, as well as an original dataset that investigates Canadians’ support of the notwithstanding clause and court curbing.
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
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: American Nineteenth Century History is a peer-reviewed, transatlantic journal devoted to the history of the United States during the long nineteenth century. It welcomes contributions on themes and topics relating to America in this period: slavery, race and ethnicity, the Civil War and Reconstruction, military history, American nationalism, urban history, immigration and ethnicity, western history, the history of women, gender studies, African Americans and Native Americans, cultural studies and comparative pieces. In addition to articles based on original research, historiographical pieces, reassessments of historical controversies, and reappraisals of prominent events or individuals are welcome. Special issues devoted to a particular theme or topic will also be considered.
期刊最新文献
The Gender Gap and Academic Publishing in Political Science: Evidence from Canada Debating the Voting Age: How Canadian Legislators Grapple with the Federal Voting Age NORAD: In Perpetuity and Beyond Managing Federalism Through Pandemic The Right to Be Rural
×
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