In this paper I wish to raise several critical thoughts on the doctrine of proportionality, which is arguably one of the leading manifestations of the concept of reasonableness in public and constitutional law.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Ackerman, B. 1997. The Rise of World Constitutionalism. Virginia Law Review 83: 771–97.
Alexy, R. 2002. A Theory of Constitutional Rights. Oxford, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.
Beatty, D. 2004. The Ultimate Rule of Law. Oxford, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.
Bickel, A.M. 1970. The Least Dangerous Branch. The Supreme Court and the Idea of Progress. New York, N.Y.: Harper & Row.
Chapman, B. 1998. Law, Incommensurability, and Conceptually Sequenced Argument. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 146: 1487–582.
Cohen-Eliya, M., and I. Porat. 2008a. American Balancing and German Proportionality: The Historical Origins. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1272763
Cohen-Eliya, M., and I. Porat. 2009. The Hidden Foreign Law Debate In Heller: The Proportionality Approach in American Constitutional Law. San Diego Law Review 46 (forthcoming).
Grimm, D. 2007. Proportionality in Canadian and German Constitutional Law Jurisprudence. University of Toronto Law Journal 57: 383–97.
Henkin, L. 1993. A New Birth of Constitutionalism: Genetic Influences and Genetic Defects. Cardozo Law Review 14: 533–49.
Hirschl, R. 2004. Towards Juristocracy: The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Jackson, V.C. 2004. Being Proportional about Proportionality. Constitutional Commentary 21:803–60.
Kumm, M. 2007. What Do You Have in Virtue of a Constitutional Right? On the Place and Limits of the Proportionality Requirement. In Law, Rights, Discourse: Themes of the Work of Robert Alexy. Ed. G. Pavlakos. Oxford: Hart.
Law, D. 2005. Generic Constitutional Law. Minnesota Law Review 89: 652–743.
Porat, I. 2006. The Dual Model of Balancing. Cardozo Law Review 27: 1393–448.
Rivers, J. 2006. Proportionality and Variable Intensity of Review. Cambridge Law Journal 65: 174–207.
Schauer, F. 2005. Freedom of Expression Adjudication in Europe and the United States: A Case Study in Comparative Constitutional Architecture. In European and US Constitutionalism. Ed. G. Nolte, 49–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stone Sweet, A., and J. Mathews. 2008. Proportionality, Balancing and Global Constitutionalism. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 46: 26–59.
Weinrib, L. 2006. The Postwar Paradigm and American Exceptionalism. In The Migration of Constitutional Ideals. Ed. S. Choudhry, 84–113. Cambridge, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Porat, I. (2009). Some Critical Thoughts on Proportionality. In: Bongiovanni, G., Sartor, G., Valentini, C. (eds) Reasonableness and Law. Law and Philosophy Library, vol 86. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8500-0_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8500-0_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-8499-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-8500-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)