20岁时的法官参考和分裂国家参考:重新评估加拿大最高法院未完成的未成文宪法原则项目

IF 0.3 Q3 LAW ALBERTA LAW REVIEW Pub Date : 2019-07-17 DOI:10.29173/ALR2545
J. Johnson
{"title":"20岁时的法官参考和分裂国家参考:重新评估加拿大最高法院未完成的未成文宪法原则项目","authors":"J. Johnson","doi":"10.29173/ALR2545","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Upon the 20-year anniversary of the Reference re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court of Prince Edward Island and the Reference re Secession of Quebec, the author reflects on the methodology utilized by the Supreme Court of Canada to reach dramatic conclusions on the basis of unwritten constitutional principles in these cases. An analysis of several decisions leading up to the Judges Reference and the Secession Reference establish a pattern of reasoning from the abstract to the concrete, from unwritten principle to unwritten rule. However, these decisions lack in methodological self-reflection as they utilize unwritten principles to reach particular outcomes without situating the analysis in a larger interpretive framework. The author seeks to clarify this uncertainty by suggesting a methodological framework entitled “reasoning from constitutional essentials.” This methodology can assist in understanding the analytical framework used by courts to identify and reach conclusions on the basis of unwritten constitutional principles.","PeriodicalId":54047,"journal":{"name":"ALBERTA LAW REVIEW","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Judges Reference and the Secession Reference at Twenty: Reassessing the Supreme Court of Canada's Unfinished Unwritten Constitutional Principles Project\",\"authors\":\"J. Johnson\",\"doi\":\"10.29173/ALR2545\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Upon the 20-year anniversary of the Reference re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court of Prince Edward Island and the Reference re Secession of Quebec, the author reflects on the methodology utilized by the Supreme Court of Canada to reach dramatic conclusions on the basis of unwritten constitutional principles in these cases. An analysis of several decisions leading up to the Judges Reference and the Secession Reference establish a pattern of reasoning from the abstract to the concrete, from unwritten principle to unwritten rule. However, these decisions lack in methodological self-reflection as they utilize unwritten principles to reach particular outcomes without situating the analysis in a larger interpretive framework. The author seeks to clarify this uncertainty by suggesting a methodological framework entitled “reasoning from constitutional essentials.” This methodology can assist in understanding the analytical framework used by courts to identify and reach conclusions on the basis of unwritten constitutional principles.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54047,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ALBERTA LAW REVIEW\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ALBERTA LAW REVIEW\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.29173/ALR2545\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ALBERTA LAW REVIEW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29173/ALR2545","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在爱德华王子岛省法院法官参考薪酬和魁北克参考分裂国家20周年之际,提交人回顾了加拿大最高法院在这些案件中根据不成文宪法原则得出引人注目结论的方法。通过对导致《法官参考》和《分裂国家参考》的几项裁决的分析,确立了从抽象到具体、从不成文原则到不成文规则的推理模式。然而,这些决定缺乏方法上的自我反思,因为它们利用不成文的原则来获得特定的结果,而没有将分析置于更大的解释框架中。作者试图通过提出一个题为“从宪法要点进行推理”的方法框架来澄清这种不确定性。这种方法可以帮助理解法院用来根据不成文的宪法原则确定和得出结论的分析框架。
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 Judges Reference and the Secession Reference at Twenty: Reassessing the Supreme Court of Canada's Unfinished Unwritten Constitutional Principles Project
Upon the 20-year anniversary of the Reference re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court of Prince Edward Island and the Reference re Secession of Quebec, the author reflects on the methodology utilized by the Supreme Court of Canada to reach dramatic conclusions on the basis of unwritten constitutional principles in these cases. An analysis of several decisions leading up to the Judges Reference and the Secession Reference establish a pattern of reasoning from the abstract to the concrete, from unwritten principle to unwritten rule. However, these decisions lack in methodological self-reflection as they utilize unwritten principles to reach particular outcomes without situating the analysis in a larger interpretive framework. The author seeks to clarify this uncertainty by suggesting a methodological framework entitled “reasoning from constitutional essentials.” This methodology can assist in understanding the analytical framework used by courts to identify and reach conclusions on the basis of unwritten constitutional principles.
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
自引率
20.00%
发文量
2
期刊最新文献
Canadian Challenges in Implementing the Kyoto Protocol: A Cause for Harmonization Principles of Kyoto and Emissions Trading Systems: A Primer for Energy Lawyers Fundamental Aspects of Oil and Gas Revisited Coalbed Methane: Conventional Rules for an Unconventional Resource Recent Regulatory and Legislative Developments of Interest to Oil and Gas Lawyers
×
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