相称性是司法审查的宪法依据,特别涉及人权

B. H. Simamba
{"title":"相称性是司法审查的宪法依据,特别涉及人权","authors":"B. H. Simamba","doi":"10.1080/14729342.2016.1244452","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Many countries in the British Commonwealth do not recognize proportionality as a general ground for judicial review. In the Cayman Islands, a British Overseas Territory, the 2009 Constitution provides that decisions of public authorities must, among other things, be proportionate. In the United Kingdom, by virtue of the Human Rights Act 1998 (‘HRA’), domestic courts must take into account Strasbourg jurisprudence, which applies the proportionality principle in cases involving the European Convention on Human Rights. This article examines the extent to which proportionality may have become, if at all, a general ground for review in the Cayman Islands. The answer to this question is likely to influence the interpretation of other constitutions (and statutes in general) in the Commonwealth which have codified some aspects of judicial review. The extent to which the HRA is relevant to the interpretation of human rights provisions in the British Overseas Territories is also considered.","PeriodicalId":35148,"journal":{"name":"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal","volume":"58 2 1","pages":"125 - 159"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14729342.2016.1244452","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Proportionality as a constitutional ground of judicial review with special reference to human rights\",\"authors\":\"B. H. Simamba\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14729342.2016.1244452\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Many countries in the British Commonwealth do not recognize proportionality as a general ground for judicial review. In the Cayman Islands, a British Overseas Territory, the 2009 Constitution provides that decisions of public authorities must, among other things, be proportionate. In the United Kingdom, by virtue of the Human Rights Act 1998 (‘HRA’), domestic courts must take into account Strasbourg jurisprudence, which applies the proportionality principle in cases involving the European Convention on Human Rights. This article examines the extent to which proportionality may have become, if at all, a general ground for review in the Cayman Islands. The answer to this question is likely to influence the interpretation of other constitutions (and statutes in general) in the Commonwealth which have codified some aspects of judicial review. The extent to which the HRA is relevant to the interpretation of human rights provisions in the British Overseas Territories is also considered.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35148,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"58 2 1\",\"pages\":\"125 - 159\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14729342.2016.1244452\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2016.1244452\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2016.1244452","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

摘要

英联邦的许多国家不承认比例性是司法审查的普遍依据。在英国海外领土开曼群岛,2009年的宪法规定,公共当局的决定,除其他事项外,必须是相称的。在联合王国,根据《1998年人权法》(HRA),国内法院必须考虑斯特拉斯堡判例,该判例在涉及《欧洲人权公约》的案件中适用比例原则。本文探讨了在开曼群岛,相称性可能在多大程度上(如果有的话)成为审查的一般依据。对这个问题的回答可能会影响到对联邦其他宪法(和一般法规)的解释,这些宪法(和法规)编纂了司法审查的某些方面。还审议了《人权法》在多大程度上与解释英国海外领土的人权规定有关。
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
Proportionality as a constitutional ground of judicial review with special reference to human rights
ABSTRACT Many countries in the British Commonwealth do not recognize proportionality as a general ground for judicial review. In the Cayman Islands, a British Overseas Territory, the 2009 Constitution provides that decisions of public authorities must, among other things, be proportionate. In the United Kingdom, by virtue of the Human Rights Act 1998 (‘HRA’), domestic courts must take into account Strasbourg jurisprudence, which applies the proportionality principle in cases involving the European Convention on Human Rights. This article examines the extent to which proportionality may have become, if at all, a general ground for review in the Cayman Islands. The answer to this question is likely to influence the interpretation of other constitutions (and statutes in general) in the Commonwealth which have codified some aspects of judicial review. The extent to which the HRA is relevant to the interpretation of human rights provisions in the British Overseas Territories is also considered.
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
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
期刊最新文献
Blurring boundaries on ‘taking part’ in an unlawful assembly: HKSAR v Choy Kin Yue (2022) 25 HKCFAR 360 ‘The law has taken all my rights away’: on India’s conundrum of able-normative death with dignity ‘Delicate plants’, ‘loose cannons’, or ‘a marriage of true minds’? The role of academic literature in judicial decision-making Legal transplantation of minors’ contracts in India and Malaysia: ‘Weak’ Watson and a ‘misfitted’ transplant Corruption and the constitutional position of the Overseas Territories
×
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