000 03794nam a22004815i 4500
001 978-90-481-9002-7
003 DE-He213
005 20140220084602.0
007 cr nn 008mamaa
008 100623s2010 ne | s |||| 0|eng d
020 _a9789048190027
_9978-90-481-9002-7
024 7 _a10.1007/978-90-481-9002-7
_2doi
050 4 _aB65
072 7 _aLAB
_2bicssc
072 7 _aPHI021000
_2bisacsh
072 7 _aLAW000000
_2bisacsh
082 0 4 _a340.1
_223
100 1 _avan der Schyff, Gerhard.
_eauthor.
245 1 0 _aJudicial Review of Legislation
_h[electronic resource] :
_bA Comparative Study of the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and South Africa /
_cby Gerhard van der Schyff.
264 1 _aDordrecht :
_bSpringer Netherlands :
_bImprint: Springer,
_c2010.
300 _aX, 220 p.
_bonline resource.
336 _atext
_btxt
_2rdacontent
337 _acomputer
_bc
_2rdamedia
338 _aonline resource
_bcr
_2rdacarrier
347 _atext file
_bPDF
_2rda
490 1 _aIus Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ;
_v5
505 0 _aSetting the Scene -- Three Systems of Judicial Review -- Judicial Review and Democracy -- Fora of Review -- Modalities of Review -- Content of Review -- Consequences of Review -- Constitutionalism Personified.
520 _aConstitutionalism is the permanent quest to control state power, of which the judicial review of legislation is a prime example. Although the judicial review of legislation is increasingly common in modern societies, it is not a finished project. This device still raises questions as to whether judicial review is justified, and how it may be structured. Yet, judicial review’s justification and its scope are seldom addressed in the same study, thereby making for an inconvenient divorce of these two related avenues of study. To narrow the divide, the object of this work is quite straightforward. Namely, is the idea of judicial review defensible, and what influences its design and scope? This book addresses these matters by comparing the judicial review of legislation in the United Kingdom (the Human Rights Act of 1998), the Netherlands (the Halsema Proposal of 2002) and the Constitution of South Africa of 1996. These systems present valuable material to study the issues raised by judicial review. The Netherlands is of particular interest as its Constitution still prohibits the constitutional review of acts of parliament, while allowing treaty review of such acts. The Halsema Proposal wants to even out this difference by allowing the courts also to apply constitutional norms to legislation and not only to international norms. The Human Rights Act and the South African Constitution also present interesting questions that will make their study worthwhile. One can think of the issue of dialogue between the legislature and the judiciary. This topic enjoys increased attention in the United Kingdom but is somewhat underexplored in South African thought on judicial review. These and similar issues are studied in each of the three systems, to not only gain a better understanding of the systems as such, but also of judicial review in general.
650 0 _aPhilosophy (General).
650 0 _aPhilosophy of law.
650 0 _aPublic law.
650 1 4 _aPhilosophy.
650 2 4 _aPhilosophy of Law.
650 2 4 _aPrivate International Law, International & Foreign Law, Comparative Law.
650 2 4 _aPublic Law.
710 2 _aSpringerLink (Online service)
773 0 _tSpringer eBooks
776 0 8 _iPrinted edition:
_z9789048190010
830 0 _aIus Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ;
_v5
856 4 0 _uhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9002-7
912 _aZDB-2-SHU
999 _c113570
_d113570