Ulteriori informazioni
This two-volume set gives an account of the origins and growth of judicial review in the democratic countries of the G-20 from its beginnings in the United States to its expansion after World War II. Volume 1 covers the common law jurisdictions.
Sommario
- Chapter 1. The Common Law Legal Tradition
- Chapter 3. The Privy Council: The Umpire of the British Empire
- Chapter 4. The United States: The King in Council; the Founding; the Reconstruction Amendments; and the Progressive Era Amendments
- Chapter 5. Canada: From Privy Council to Supreme Court
- Chapter 6. The Commonwealth of Australia: Umpiring Without a Bill of Rights
- Chapter 7. The Union of India: Umpiring and Rights from Wrongs
- Chapter 8. The State of Israel
- Chapter 9. The Republic of South Africa
- Chapter 10. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Borrowing Second Look Judicial Review From Canada
Info autore
Steven Gow Calabresi is Clayton J. and Henry R. Barber Professor of Law at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law and Visiting Professor of Law at Yale Law School. He holds a J.D. from Yale Law School.
Riassunto
This two-volume set examines the origins and growth of judicial review in the key G-20 constitutional democracies, which include the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, India, Canada, Australia, South Korea, Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia, Mexico, and the European Union, as well as Israel. The volumes consider five different theories, which help to explain the origins of judicial review, and identify which theories apply best in the various countries discussed. They consider not only what gives rise to judicial review originally, but also what causes of judicial review lead it to become more powerful and prominent over time. Volume One discusses the G-20 common law countries and Israel.
Testo aggiuntivo
Beyond supplying a vast quantity of information in English on major constitutional laws,
Professor Steven Calabresi's imposing work makes two significant contributions to the
comparative agenda. First, it shows a commitment to the normative value of foreign law even
as countries ranging from Hungary to the United Kingdom, from the United States to Brazil,
and from Poland to India indulge in forms of retrenchment vis-à-vis foreignness. Secondly,
it demonstrates how conservative values-Professor Calabresi is a prominent Republican on
the U.S. scene-can accommodate a dedication to foreign legal studies. The epistemological
significance of both brave achievements can hardly be overstated."
-Pierre Legrand, Professor of Law, The Sorbonne
