朱学磊:弱司法审查体制必要性之证成

选择字号:   本文共阅读 581 次 更新时间:2020-02-18 14:20:58

进入专题: 弱司法审查   对话理论   司法至上   议会至上  

朱学磊  
Kavanagh, The Lure and The Limits of Dialogue, 66 University of Toronto Law Journal 83, 113-114(2016).

   〔56〕See Peter W. Hogg & Allison A. Bushell, Charter Dialogue Revisited or “Much Ado about Metaphors”,45 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 1,48(2007).

   〔57〕See Rosalind Dixon, The Supreme Court of Canada, Charter Dialogue, and Deference, 47 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 235,256(2009).

   〔58〕See Rosalind Dixon, The Supreme Court of Canada, Charter Dialogue, and Deference, 47 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 235,269(2009).

   〔59〕See Peter W. Hogg & Allison A. Bushell, Charter Dialogue Revisited or“ Much Ado about Metaphors”,45 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 1,32-33(2007).

   〔60〕See Peter W. Hogg & Allison A. Bushell, Charter Dialogue Revisited or“ Much Ado about Metaphors”,45 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 1,34(2007).

   〔61〕See Kent Roach, Dialogic Judicial Review and its Critics, 23 Supreme Court Law Review (2nd) 49,95-97(2004).

   〔62〕See Rainer Knopff et al.,Dialogue: Clarified and Reconsidered, 54 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 609,627(2017).

   〔63〕See Christopher P. Manfredi & James B. Kelly, Six Degrees of Dialogue: A Response to Hogg and Bushell, 37 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 513,522(1999); Andrew Petter, Twenty Years of Charter Justification: From Liberal Legalism to Dubious, 52 University of New Brunswick Law Journal 187,198(2003).

   〔64〕See Christopher P. Manfredi & James B. Kelly, Six Degrees of Dialogue: A Response to Hogg and Bushell, 37 Osgoode Hall Law Journal 513,524(1999).

   〔65〕Quoted from Janet L. Hiebert, Charter Conflicts: What is Parliament’s Role? Mc Gill Queen’s University Press, 2002, p.36.

   〔66〕Quoted from Janet L. Hiebert, Charter Conflicts: What is Parliament’s Role? Mc Gill Queen’s University Press,2002, p.48.

   〔67〕See Janet L. Hiebert, Charter Conflicts: What is Parliament’s Role? Mc Gill Queen’s University Press,2002, p.51

   〔68〕See Vriend v. Canada,[1998]1 S.C.R.493, at 566.

   〔69〕See M. v. H.,[1999]2 S.C.R.3, at 182.

   〔70〕See Vriend v .Canada, [1998] 1 S.C.R.493, at 578.

   〔71〕See Little Sisters Book & Art Emporium v. Canada, [2000] 2 S.C.R.1120, at 1257.

   〔72〕See Re Manitoba Language Rights,[1985]1 S.C.R.721.

   〔73〕See Schachter v. Canada,[1992]2 S.C.R.679, at 719.

   〔74〕See Corbiere v. Canada,[1999]2 S.C.R.203, at 284.

   〔75〕See R. v. Mills, [1999]3 S.C.R.668, at 670.

   〔76〕See Sauvé v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer), [2002]3 S.C.R.519, at 577.

   〔77〕See A. Kavanagh, The Lureand The Limits of Dialogue, 66 University of Toronto Law Journal 83,89(2016).

   〔78〕See Ewing, “Human Rights”, in Caneand Tushnet (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Legal Studies, Oxford University Press,2003,p.309.

   〔79〕See Andrew Petter, Twenty Years of Charter Justification: from Liberal Legalism to Dubious, 52 University of New Brunswick Law Journal 187,194(2003).

   〔80〕See J. A. G. Griffith, The Political Constitution, 42 The Modern Law Review 1,17-18(1979).

   〔81〕See Jeremy Waldron, A Right Based Critique of Constitutional Rights, 13 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 18,28(1993).

   〔82〕See Richard Bellamy, Political Constitutionalism: A Republican Defense of the Constitutionality of Democracy, Cambridge University Press, 2007, pp.27-49.

   〔83〕See Richard H.Fallon, The Core of an Uneasy Case for Judicial Review, 121 Harvard Law Review 1693,1720-1728(2008).

   〔84〕参见[美]罗纳德·德沃金著:《自由的法——对美国宪法的道德解读》,刘丽君译,上海人民出版社 2013年版,第 21-22页。

   〔85〕See J. A. G. Griffith, The Political Constitution, 42 The Modern Law Review 1,16(1979).

   〔86〕See J. A. G. Griffith, The Political Constitution, 42 The Modern Law Review 1,18(1979).

   〔87〕对格里菲斯、汤姆金斯和贝拉米规范性主张的梳理可参见何永红:《政治宪法论的英国渊源及其误读》,《清华法学》2014年第 3期,第 38-40页。

   〔88〕参见[美]罗纳德·德沃金著:《法律帝国》,许杨勇译,上海三联书店 2016年版,第 140-147页。

   〔89〕See Colm O’Cinneide, “Human Rights and the Constitution”, in Jeffrey Jowell and Dawn Oliver( eds.), The Changing Constitution (8th edition ), Oxford University Press,2015,pp.69-71.

   〔90〕例如,为了消除教育领域的种族歧视现象,美国联邦最高法院通过“布朗诉教育委员会案”判定校区隔离的做法违宪。为了更好落实这一目标,法院甚至发明了校车接送系统,但随着美国中上阶层离开城市前往郊区居住,上述目标又面临新的挑战。详细讨论可参见张千帆著:《西方宪政体系(上册·美国宪法)》,中国政法大学出版社2004年版,第 353-357页。

   〔91〕See Richard H. Fallon, The Core of an Uneasy Case for Judicial Review, 121 Harvard Law Review 1693,1709(2008).

   〔92〕See Jeremy Waldron, A Right Based Critique of Constitutional Rights, 13 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 18,36(1993).

   〔93〕 See Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S.393(1857); Roe v.Wade,410 U.S.113(1973).

〔94〕例如,在加拿大,读入和读出式解读有时会明显超出议会立法的语义射程并因此引发争议,从而要求法院对相关解释方法的使用要以尊重宪章和议会立法目标为前提。在英国,法官对议会立法的解释需要符合该法的“纹理”,不能违反其根本目标。在新西兰,法院曾在判决中明确表示,(点击此处阅读下一页)

    进入专题: 弱司法审查   对话理论   司法至上   议会至上  

本文责编:陈冬冬
发信站:爱思想(http://www.aisixiang.com),栏目:天益学术 > 法学 > 宪法学与行政法学
本文链接:http://www.aisixiang.com/data/120257.html

0 推荐

在方框中输入电子邮件地址,多个邮件之间用半角逗号(,)分隔。

爱思想(aisixiang.com)网站为公益纯学术网站,旨在推动学术繁荣、塑造社会精神。
凡本网首发及经作者授权但非首发的所有作品,版权归作者本人所有。网络转载请注明作者、出处并保持完整,纸媒转载请经本网或作者本人书面授权。
凡本网注明“来源:XXX(非爱思想网)”的作品,均转载自其它媒体,转载目的在于分享信息、助推思想传播,并不代表本网赞同其观点和对其真实性负责。若作者或版权人不愿被使用,请来函指出,本网即予改正。
Powered by aisixiang.com Copyright © 2022 by aisixiang.com All Rights Reserved 爱思想 京ICP备12007865号-1 京公网安备11010602120014号.
工业和信息化部备案管理系统