The Use of Foreign Precedents by Constitutional Judges

Description
In 2007 the International Association of Constitutional Law established an Interest Group on 'The Use of Foreign Precedents by Constitutional Judges' to conduct a survey of the use of foreign precedents by Supreme and Constitutional Courts in deciding constitutional cases. Its purpose was to determine - through empirical analysis employing both quantitative and qualitative indicators - the extent to which foreign case law is cited. The survey aimed to test the reliability of studies describing and reporting instances of transjudicial communication between Courts. The research also provides useful insights into the extent to which a progressive constitutional convergence may be taking place between common law and civil law traditions. The present work includes studies by scholars from African, American, Asian, European, Latin American and Oceania countries, representing jurisdictions belonging to both common law and civil law traditions, and countries employing both centralised and decentralised systems of judicial review. The results, published here for the first time, give us the best evidence yet of the existence and limits of a transnational constitutional communication between courts. The collected data for each jurisdiction makes for engaging reading. It reveals details of the extent of visible (and sometimes implied) comparative activity that each of the courts displays in its jurisprudence ... we now have a clearer picture of how some of the most prominent constitutional courts deal (or desist from dealing) with comparable judgments in other countries. François Venter, International Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 12, no 1, January 2014 The volume ... represents a refreshing approach to complex questions raised in debates about constitutional borrowing, transjudicial communication, or the migration of constitutional ideas ... The Use of Foreign Precedents by Constitutional Judges will be essential reading for scholars seeking to refresh the debates about using foreign law. Hélène Tyrrell, Public Law, April 2014
About this Author
Tania Groppi is Professor of Public Law at the University of Siena.Marie-Claire Ponthoreau is Professor of Constitutional Law and Comparative Law at the University of Bordeaux.
Reviews
The collected data for each jurisdiction makes for engaging reading. It reveals details of the extent of visible (and sometimes implied) comparative activity that each of the courts displays in its jurisprudence. It also amounts to an assessment of the successes and shortcomings of the use of foreign precedent (in terms of the level of reciprocal influence of well-functioning constitutional systems) by judges that are more or less inhibited by their judicial culture to do so.The editors' concluding chapter conveniently provides the reader with a comparative overview, both of the quantitative and qualitative results of the country reporters, and a tentative perspective on the future of comparative judicial practice in constitutional cases.The purpose and goals of the project are met by the book: we now have a clearer picture of how some of the most prominent constitutional courts deal (or desist from dealing) with comparable judgments in other countries.
If the product is in stock at the store nearest you, we suggest you call ahead to have it set aside for you, or you may place an order online and choose in-store pickup.