Navigacija
Portal TFL

TFL Vsebine / Revija Revus

Against judicial supremacy in constitutional interpretation

O AVTORJU
PhD candidate in Politics, Department of Political Economy, King's College London, E-mail: donald.bello_hutt@kcl.ac.uk.
AVTOR
Donald E. Bello Hutt
SOAVTOR
TIP DOKUMENTA
Strokovni članki
KLJUČNE BESEDE
KEYWORDS
constitutional interpretation, judicial review, judicial supremacy, constitutional meaning
NASLOV SEKCIJE
SECTION
Constitutional Interpretation
PUBLIKACIJA
revija Revus
ŠTEVILKA PUBLIKACIJE ABS
33
LETO
2017
ZALOŽNIK
Klub Revus - Center za raziskovanje evropske Ustavnosti in demokracije
POVZETEK
SUMMARY
Rejecting judicial supremacy in constitutional interpretation, this paper argues that understanding the interpretation of constitutions to be a solely legal and judicial undertaking excludes citizens from such activity. The paper proffers a two-pronged classification of analyses of constitutional interpretation. Implicit accounts discuss interpretation without reflecting on whether such activity can or should be performed by non-judicial institutions as well. Explicit accounts ask whether interpretation of constitutions is a matter to be dealt with by courts and answer affirmatively. I criticise both camps. Implicit accounts fail to explain why constitutional interpretation is purely judicial in character. Explicit accounts do not provide enough reasons why the judiciary is allegedly the ideal institution to give constitutions meaning with final authority, both in instrumental and normative terms. The paper closes by suggesting avenues for future research.
TITLE

Za ogled celotnega dokumenta je potrebna prijava v portal.

Prijava

Še niste uporabnik?

Za brezplačen dostop do vsebin portala Tax-Fin-Lex se registrirajte. Brezplačna registracija vam omogoča:

  • Vpogled v 7 dokumentov
  • Prejemanje e-dnevnika Lex-Novice
  • Prejemenje e-tednika TFL Glasnik
Potrebujete pomoč? Pokličite nas na 01 432 42 43 ali pošljite sporočilo.
 
x Dialog title
dialog window