Read more
Zusatztext The work by Groppi and Ponthoreau is the result of a well-structured project and relies on sound methodology! which guarantees that all relevant issues are addressed and empirically verified...The individual chapters are also well written! thoroughly researched and easy to understand thanks to the use of various tables and graphs. (Translated from the original German.) Informationen zum Autor Tania Groppi is Professor of Public Law at the University of Siena, Italy. Marie-Claire Ponthoreau is Professor of Constitutional Law and Comparative Law at the University of Bordeaux, France. Klappentext In 2007 the International Association of Constitutional Law established an Interest Group to conduct a survey of the use of foreign precedents by Supreme and Constitutional Courts. This results of the survey! presented here! gives us the best evidence yet of the existence! and extent! of a transnational constitutional dialogue between courts. Zusammenfassung In 2007 the International Association of Constitutional Law established an Interest Group on 'The Use of Foreign Precedents by Constitutional Judges' to conduct a survey of the use of foreign precedents by Supreme and Constitutional Courts in deciding constitutional cases. Its purpose was to determine - through empirical analysis employing both quantitative and qualitative indicators - the extent to which foreign case law is cited. The survey aimed to test the reliability of studies describing and reporting instances of transjudicial communication between Courts. The research also provides useful insights into the extent to which a progressive constitutional convergence may be taking place between common law and civil law traditions. The present work includes studies by scholars from African, American, Asian, European, Latin American and Oceania countries, representing jurisdictions belonging to both common law and civil law traditions, and countries employing both centralised and decentralised systems of judicial review. The results, published here for the first time, give us the best evidence yet of the existence and limits of a transnational constitutional communication between courts. Inhaltsverzeichnis Introduction. The Methodology of the Research: How to Assess the Reality of Transjudicial Communication? Tania Groppi and Marie-Claire PonthoreauPart I 1. Reference to Foreign Precedents by the Australian High Court: A Matter of Method Cheryl Saunders and Adrienne Stone2. Canada: Protecting Rights in a 'Worldwide Rights Culture'. An Empirical Study of the Use of Foreign Precedents by the Supreme Court of Canada (1982–2010) Gianluca Gentili3. India: A 'Critical' Use of Foreign Precedents in Constitutional Adjudication Valentina Rita Scotti4. The Supreme Court of Ireland and the Use of Foreign Precedents: The Value of Constitutional History Cristina Fasone5. Israel: Creating a Constitution—The Use of Foreign Precedents by the Supreme Court (1994–2010) Suzie Navot6. Namibia: The Supreme Court as a Foreign Law Importer Irene Spigno7. South Africa: Teaching an 'Old Dog' New Tricks? An Empirical Studyof the Use of Foreign Precedents by the South African Constitutional Court (1995–2010) Christa RautenbachPart II 8. Austria: Non-cosmopolitan, but Europe-friendly—The Constitutional Court's Comparative Approach Anna Gampervi Contents9. Lifting the Constitutional Curtain? The Use of Foreign Precedent by the German Federal Constitutional Court Stefan Martini10. Hungary: Unsystematic and Incoherent Borrowing of Law. The Use of Foreign Judicial Precedents in the Jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court, 1999–2010 Zoltán Szente11. A Gap between the Apparent and Hidden Attitudes of the Supreme Court of Japan towards Foreign Precedents Akiko Ejima12. Mexico: Struggling for an Open View In Constitutional Adjudication Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor and Rubén Sánchez Gil13. Romania: Analog...
