To speak of human rights in the twenty-first century is to speak of proportionality. Proportionality has been received into the constitutional doctrine of courts in continental Europe, the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, Israel, South Africa, and the United States, as well as the jurisprudence of treaty-based legal systems such as the European Convention on Human Rights. Proportionality provides a common analytical framework for resolving the great moral and political questions confronting political communities. But behind the singular appeal to proportionality lurks a range of different understandings. This volume brings together many of the world's leading constitutional theorists - proponents and critics of proportionality - to debate the merits of proportionality, the nature of rights, the practice of judicial review, and moral and legal reasoning. Their essays provide important new perspectives on this leading doctrine in human rights law.

Leading constitutional theorists debate the merits of proportionality, the nature of rights, the practice of judicial review, and moral and legal reasoning.

This book offers a comprehensive critique of the principle of proportionality and balancing as applied to human and constitutional rights.

The proportionality principle has become ever more important in European law and elsewhere. The career of the principle has attracted considerable attention from legal practitioners, legal theorists and political scientists alike, but the debate so far has been quite fragmented. In this new book the author offers a broad and systematic analysis of the proportionality principle. Discussing and comparing proportionality analysis as applied by European courts in part one of the book, the author proceeds to contrast proportionality analysis with alternative assessment schemes. In the third part of the book the author reaches beyond doctrinal reconstructions as he deciphers the functions of proportionality jurisprudence. In view of the various facets of proportionality analysis the author departs from the asserted infringement of a legally protected position by some regulatory act, proceeds to discuss the legitimacy of this intervention and undertakes an analysis of its suitability, appropriateness and necessity. According to the author, the safe grounds of proportionality means-ends rationality do not suffice where the legitimacy of an infringement has to be assessed, where conflicting values have to be “balanced” or where courts engage in a proportionality analysis “stricto sensu”. In the concluding remarks, the author proposes how proportionality analysis may be structured in order to better secure the legitimacy of the analysis.

In this edited volume, scholars from a wide range of areas of international law consider whose interests are at stake in the application of the principle of proportionality. In so doing, the volume casts new light this important principle.

This book addresses the principle of proportionality, which is currently one of the most important instruments of judicial review, from both analytical and theory of law perspectives. As such, the analysis provided is far more comprehensive and can be applied to all areas of law, not just constitutional law. On the one hand, the volume offers a broad perspective on several aspects related to proportionality, such as its structure, the balancing methodology and the distinction between rules and principles. On the other, it provides an innovative, normativist and analytical approach to proportionality, helping readers understand its structure and behaviour.

A strong counter-argument to the universalising discourse on proportionality and global constitutionalism.

The ECJ has applied fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality for decades. This book tries to elucidate the Court's approach to these fundamental tenets of Community law. It starts with establishing a firm theoretical foundation. Then, the book analyzes the case law of the ECJ and other constitutional courts to find out which method courts actually apply. Next, it is discussed why the courts follow a particular approach. Then, it is considered whether the approach fulfils constitutional requirements. Finally, a rationalizing model of balancing is developed. The book is useful for the practitioner as well as for the researcher. It does not present a mere summary of the Court's case law but a systematization of the underlying rationales.

Proportionality is one of the most important principles in constitutional law, relevant throughout the law and in jurisdictions worldwide. Setting out the 'state of the art' in proportionality doctrine, this book combines theoretical reconstruction with case-law examples, defending and developing the dominant model of proportionality.

Proportionality is a German, and thus continental European, concept in public law that is applied by both the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The principle specifies that measures adopted by executive authorities should not exceed the limits of what is appropriate and necessary in order to achieve legitimate objectives in the interest of the public. Using a functional comparative approach, this book evaluates the extent to which proportionality has been integrated into the English and Hong Kong judicial systems by comparing case law in these courts with that of the CJEU and the ECtHR. The text also reviews the development of proportionality and presents a topical understanding of why its adoption and application have encountered difficulties, particularly regarding socio-economic rights, in some jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom and Hong Kong. Written by a scholar with experience from both within the Hong Kong judicial system and from international research, this book is the first all-encompassing reference for legal practitioners worldwide.