A comparative and empirical analysis of proportionality in the case law of six constitutional and supreme courts.

A rigorous analysis of the relationship between proportionality and deference under the Human Rights Act.

There has been considerable debate in the international community as to the legality of the forceful actions in Kosovo in 1999, Afghanistan in 2002 and Iraq in 2003 under the United Nations Charter. There has been consensus, however, that the use of force in all these situations had to be both proportional and necessary. Against the background of these recent armed conflicts, this 2004 book offers the first comprehensive assessment of the twin requirements of proportionality and necessity as legal restraints on the forceful actions of States. It also provides a much-needed examination of the relationship between proportionality in the law on the use of force and international humanitarian law.

To speak of human rights in the twenty-first century is to speak of proportionality. Proportionality has been received into the constitutional doctrine of courts in continental Europe, the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, Israel, South Africa, and the United States, as well as the jurisprudence of treaty-based legal systems such as the European Convention on Human Rights. Proportionality provides a common analytical framework for resolving the great moral and political questions confronting political communities. But behind the singular appeal to proportionality lurks a range of different understandings. This volume brings together many of the world's leading constitutional theorists - proponents and critics of proportionality - to debate the merits of proportionality, the nature of rights, the practice of judicial review, and moral and legal reasoning. Their essays provide important new perspectives on this leading doctrine in human rights law.

This translation into English of the leading German-language work on the Federal Constitutional Court gives an overview of the court's history and role as one of the most influential constitutional courts in recent years. The book consists of four extended, free-standing essays written by each of the authors. The essays cover the historical development and political context of the Court; the Court and the constitution; the Court's approach to judicial reasoning; and the Court in contemporary constitutional theory.

The ECJ has applied fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality for decades. This book tries to elucidate the Court's approach to these fundamental tenets of Community law. It starts with establishing a firm theoretical foundation. Then, the book analyzes the case law of the ECJ and other constitutional courts to find out which method courts actually apply. Next, it is discussed why the courts follow a particular approach. Then, it is considered whether the approach fulfils constitutional requirements. Finally, a rationalizing model of balancing is developed. The book is useful for the practitioner as well as for the researcher. It does not present a mere summary of the Court's case law but a systematization of the underlying rationales.

With contributions from leading scholars in constitutional law, this volume examines how carefully designed and limited doctrines of proportionality can improve judicial decision-making, how it is applied in different jurisdictions, its role on constitutionalism outside the courts, and whether the principle of proportionality actually advances or detracts from democracy. Contributions from some of the seminal thinkers on the development of scholarship on proportionality (e.g. Alexy, Barak, and Beatty) extend their prior work and engage in an important dialogue on the topic. Some offer substantial critiques, others defend the doctrine and offer important clarifications and extensions of their prior work. Throughout, the authors engage not only with case law from around the world but also with existing scholarly treatments of the subject. Mathematical treatments are avoided, making the book accessible to readers from both 'soft' and hard' social science backgrounds.