Research article
Protection of Fundamental Rights as an Argument in the Dispute over the Legitimacy of Judicial Review. Selected Issues
Ochrona praw podstawowych jako argument w sporze o legitymizację sądowej kontroli konstytucyjności prawa – zarys problematyki
Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej, nr 1(30)/2022, s. 33-43
English
Abstract
The dynamic development of judicial review of the constitutionality of laws in the second half of the twentieth century is reflected in contemporary theories of judicial review. They go beyond the original axis of the dispute over the legitimacy of judicial review, which was shaped by the counter-majoritarian dilemma, and often become more nuanced. In addition to arguments related to the conceptions of institutional cooperation and accountability function of judicial review, rights-based theories of judicial review take on more and more importance. The aim of this article is to outline a wide range of issues related to the protection of fundamental rights, which protection is considered as an argument in the dispute over the legitimacy of constitutional courts. The study presents selected issues that influence the current discourse on judicial review, which include: types of such judicial review; types of arguments used in the analysed discourse; the link between fundamental rights and various concepts of democracy; and judicial review of legislative decisions concerning positive rights guarantees.
Keywords
- constitutional courts
- fundamental rights
- democracy
- positive rights
References
37 reference entries
References
-
Bello Hutt, D.E. (2017). Against judicial supremacy in constitutional interpretation. Revus 31.
-
Bickel, A. (1962). The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics. New York: Bobbs-Merill.
-
Bork, R.H. (1979). The Impossibility of Finding Welfare Rights in the Constitution. Washington University Law Quarterly 3, 695-701.
-
Chemerinsky, E. (2016). The Rational Basis Test Is Constitutional (and Desirable). Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy 14, 401-416.
-
Cross, F. (2001). The Error of Positive Rights. UCLA Law Review 48, 857- 924.
-
Dworkin, R. (1995). Constitutionalism and Democracy. European Journal of Philosophy 1, 2-11.
-
Dworkin, R. (1990). Equality, Democracy, and Constitution: We the People in Court. Alberta Law Review 28, 324-346.
-
Dworkin, R. (1997). Freedom’s Law. The Moral Reading of American Constitution. New York: Harvard University Press.
-
Eisgruber, Ch.L. (2001). Constitutional Self-Government. Cambridge- London: Harvard University Press.
-
Eylon, Y., Harel, A. (2006). The Right to Judicial Review. Virginia Law Review 92, 991-1022.
-
Fallon, R.H (2008). The Core of an Uneasy Case for Judicial Review. Harvard Law Review 121, 1693-1736.
-
Harel A. (2003). Right-based Judicial Review: A Democratic Justification. Law and Philosophy 22, 247-276.
-
Harel, A., Kahana, T. (2010). The Easy Core Case for Judicial Review. Journal of Legal Analysis 2, 227-253.
-
Harel, A. (2005). Theories of Rights. In P. Golding, W.A. Edmundson (eds.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Law and Legal Theory. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
-
Harel, A. (2014). Why law matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Harel, A., Why legislatures owe deference to the court. A commentary on Dimitrios Kyritsis’ Where our protection lies: separation of powers and constitutional review. Revus 38.
-
Kaleta, K. (2018). Legitymizacja sądownictwa konstytucyjnego w świetle teorii demokracji. Państwo i Prawo 5, 3-21.
-
King, J.A. (2012). Judging Social Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Klatt, M. (2015). Balancing Competence: How Institutional Cosmopolitanism Can Manage Jurisdictional Conflict. Global Constitutionalism 4, 195-226.
-
Klatt, M. (2015). Positive Right: Who Decides? Judicial Review in Balance. International Journal of Constitutional Law 13, 354-382.
-
Korycka-Zirk, M. (2017). Filozoficzno-prawny wymiar kontroli konstytucyjności. Toruń: TNOiK.
-
Kustra, A. (2018). Kelsenowskie podstawy sądownictwa konstytucyjnego. In M. Granat (ed.), Sądownictwo konstytucyjne. Teoria i praktyka. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UKSW.
-
Kustra-Rogatka, A., Wróblewska, I., Włoch, W. (2021). Osobliwy sąd. Idea sądownictwa konstytucyjnego w kontekstach rządów prawa, demokracji i praw jednostki. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UMK.
-
Kyritsis, D. (2017). Where Our Protection Lies: Separation of Powers and Constitutional Review. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Lafont, C. (2016). Philosophical Foundations of Judicial Review, In D. Dyzenhaus, M. Thornburn (eds.), Philosophical Foundations of Constitutional Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Langford, M. (2015). Why Judicial Review. Oslo Law Review 1, 36-85.
-
Lustig, D., Weiler, J.H.H. (2018). Judicial review in the contemporary world – Retrospective and prospective. International Journal of Constitutional Law 16, 315-372.
-
Mikuli, M. (2007). Zdekoncentrowana sądowa kontrola konstytucyjności prawa. Stany Zjednoczone i państwa europejskie. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
-
Raz, J. (1998). Disagreement in Politics. The American Journal of Jurisprudence 43, 25-52.
-
Sadurski, W. (2002). Judicial Review and the Protection of Constitutional Rights. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 22, 275-299.
-
Sulikowski, A. (2008). Współczesny paradygmat sądownictwa konstytucyjnego wobec kryzysu nowoczesności. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego.
-
Tremblay, L.B. (2005). The legitimacy of judicial review: The limits of dialogue between courts and legislatures. International Journal of Constitutional Law 3, 617-648.
-
Tushnet, M. (2002). Alternative Forms of Judicial Review. Michigan Law Review 101, 2781-2802.
-
Tushnet, M. (2003). Judicial Activist or Restraint in a Section 33 World. University of Toronto Law Journal 52, 89-101.
-
Waldron, J. (2006). The Core of the Case against Judicial Review. The Yale Law Journal 115, 1346-1406.
-
Włoch, W. (2018). Problem gwarancji konstytucyjności legislacji w ujęciu czystej teorii prawa H. Kelsena. Przegląd Konstytucyjny 1, 65-91.
-
Young, K.G. (2012). Constituting economic and social rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Publication information
Issue data
Issue nr 1(30)/2022
- Pages
- 33-43
- Published
How to cite
Bibliographic description and verified export formats.
Format AFPiFS
A. Kustra-Rogatka, Protection of Fundamental Rights as an Argument in the Dispute over the Legitimacy of Judicial Review. Selected Issues, „Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej” nr 1(30)/2022, s. 33–43, DOI: 10.36280/afpifs.2022.1.33
ACM
[1] Aleksandra Kustra-Rogatka. 2022. Protection of Fundamental Rights as an Argument in the Dispute over the Legitimacy of Judicial Review. Selected Issues. AFPiFS 1(30) (2022), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.36280/afpifs.2022.1.33
ACS
(1) Kustra-Rogatka, A. Protection of Fundamental Rights as an Argument in the Dispute over the Legitimacy of Judicial Review. Selected Issues. AFPiFS 2022, No. 1(30), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.36280/afpifs.2022.1.33.
APA
Kustra-Rogatka, A. (2022). Protection of Fundamental Rights as an Argument in the Dispute over the Legitimacy of Judicial Review. Selected Issues. Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej, 1(30), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.36280/afpifs.2022.1.33
ABNT
KUSTRA-ROGATKA, Aleksandra. Protection of Fundamental Rights as an Argument in the Dispute over the Legitimacy of Judicial Review. Selected Issues. Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej, n. 1(30), p. 33–43, 2022.
Chicago
Kustra-Rogatka, Aleksandra. “Protection of Fundamental Rights as an Argument in the Dispute over the Legitimacy of Judicial Review. Selected Issues.” Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej, no. 1(30) (2022): 33–43. https://doi.org/10.36280/afpifs.2022.1.33.
Harvard
Kustra-Rogatka, A. (2022) “Protection of Fundamental Rights as an Argument in the Dispute over the Legitimacy of Judicial Review. Selected Issues,” Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej, 1(30), pp. 33–43. Available at: https://doi.org/10.36280/afpifs.2022.1.33.
IEEE
[1] A. Kustra-Rogatka, “Protection of Fundamental Rights as an Argument in the Dispute over the Legitimacy of Judicial Review. Selected Issues,” AFPiFS, no. 1(30), pp. 33–43, 2022, doi: 10.36280/afpifs.2022.1.33.
MLA
Kustra-Rogatka, Aleksandra. “Protection of Fundamental Rights as an Argument in the Dispute over the Legitimacy of Judicial Review. Selected Issues.” Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej, no. 1(30), 2022, pp. 33–43, https://doi.org/10.36280/afpifs.2022.1.33.
Turabian
Kustra-Rogatka, Aleksandra. “Protection of Fundamental Rights as an Argument in the Dispute over the Legitimacy of Judicial Review. Selected Issues.” Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej, no. 1(30) (2022): 33–43. https://doi.org/10.36280/afpifs.2022.1.33.
Vancouver
1. Kustra-Rogatka A. Protection of Fundamental Rights as an Argument in the Dispute over the Legitimacy of Judicial Review. Selected Issues. AFPiFS. 2022;1(30):33–43. doi:10.36280/afpifs.2022.1.33
OSCOLA
Aleksandra Kustra-Rogatka, ‘Protection of Fundamental Rights as an Argument in the Dispute over the Legitimacy of Judicial Review. Selected Issues’ (2022) 1(30) AFPiFS 33 <https://doi.org/10.36280/afpifs.2022.1.33>.