A comparative and historical account of the origins and meanings of the discourse of judicial 'balancing' in constitutional rights law.

The book focuses on Robert Alexy's theory of constitutional rights. Alexy systematically presented the theory in his seminal book Theorie der Grundrechte (1985; Engl. translation Theory of Constitutional Rights, 2002) and continued to develop it in numerous subsequent articles. Arguably still the most influential theory of constitutional rights, it has found widespread academic support, as well as recognition in several constitutional jurisdictions. On the other hand, it has also been the object of considerable criticism. The aim of this book is to outline the central aspects of Alexy's theory as he sees them, and to further develop the principles of constitutional, fundamental, and human rights by applying a constructive criticism of his theory.

This book examines how the judicialization of politics, and the politicization of courts, affect representative democracy, rule of law, and separation of powers. This volume critically assesses the phenomena of judicialization of politics and politicization of the judiciary. It explores the rising impact of courts on key constitutional principles, such as democracy and separation of powers, which is paralleled by increasing criticism of this influence from both liberal and illiberal perspectives. The book also addresses the challenges to rule of law as a principle, preconditioned on independent and powerful courts, which are triggered by both democratic backsliding and the mushrooming of populist constitutionalism and illiberal constitutional regimes. Presenting a wide range of case studies, the book will be a valuable resource for students and academics in constitutional law and political science seeking to understand the increasingly complex relationships between the judiciary, executive and legislature.

This book offers a comprehensive critique of the principle of proportionality and balancing as applied to human and constitutional rights.

An eminent constitutional scholar reveals how our approach to rights is dividing America, and shows how we can build a better system of justice.

In any country where there is a Bill of Rights, constitutional rights reasoning is an important part of the legal process. As more and more countries adopt Human Rights legislation and accede to international human rights agreements, and as the European Union introduces its own Bill of Rights, judges struggle to implement these rights consistently and sometimes the reasoning behind them is lost. Examining the practice in other jurisdictions can be a valuable guide. Robert Alexy's classic work reconstructs the reasoning behind the jurisprudence of the German Basic Law and in doing so provides a theory of general application to all jurisdictions where judges wrestle with rights adjudication. In considering the features of constitutional rights reasoning, the author moves from the doctrine of proportionality, procedural rights and the structure and scope of constitutional rights, to general rights of liberty and equality and the problem of horizontal effect. A postscript written for the English edition considers critiques of the Theory since it first appeared in 1985, focusing in particular on the discretion left to legislatures and in an extended introduction the translator argues that the theory may be used to clarify the nature of legal reasoning in the context of rights under the British Constitution.

Federica Giovanella examines the on-going conflict between copyright and informational privacy rights within the judicial system in this timely and intriguing book.