Suchergebnisse

In Proportionality Principles in American Law, E. Thomas Sullivan and Richard S. Frase advance a general theory of proportionality for the American legal system. They argue that standards of review should be more clearly and precisely defined, and that in most circumstances every intrusive government measure which limits or threatens individual rights should undergo some degree of proportionality review. The authors identify three basic ways that government measures and private remedies have been found to be disproportionate and use this framework to examine contemporary and potential uses of proportionality principles in public law, civil liberties, and the criminal justice system, emphasizing their utility to guide judicial review of excessive government measures.

Preliminary Material -- Introduction -- pa in eu Law -- pa in echr Law -- Conclusions to Part 1 -- uk Courts and pa -- Norwegian Courts and pa -- Conclusions to Part 2 -- pa: Between Rationality and Reasonableness -- pa: Between Substance and Procedure -- pa and the Role of Courts -- pa as a (General) Principle of Law -- pa and the Rule of Law -- Conclusions to Part 3 -- Conclusions with Resolutions -- Bibliography -- Index.

The principle of proportionality is one of the corner-stones of international humanitarian law. Almost all states involved in armed conflicts recognize that launching an attack which may cause incidental harm to civilians that exceeds the direct military advantage anticipated from the attack is prohibited. This prohibition is included in military manuals, taught in professional courses, and accepted as almost axiomatic. And yet, the exact meaning of the principle is vague. Almost every issue, from the most elementary question of how to compare civilian harm and military advantage, to the obligation to employ accurate but expensive weapons, is disputed. Controversy is especially rife regarding asymmetrical conflicts, in which many modern democracies are involved. How exactly should proportionality be implemented when the enemy is not an army, but a non-state-actor embedded within a civilian population? What does it mean to use precautions in attack, when almost every attack is directed at objects that are used for both military and civilian purposes? In Proportionality in International Humanitarian Law, Amichai Cohen and David Zlotogorski discuss the philosophical and political background of the principle of proportionality. Offering a fresh and comprehensive look at this key doctrine, they comprehensively discuss the different components of the proportionality "equation" - the meaning of "incidental harm" to civilians; the "military advantage" and the term "excessive". The book proposes the debates over the principle of proportionality be reframed to focus on the precautions taken before the attack along with the course States should follow in investigations of the violations of the principle.

From the ancient origins of Just War doctrine to contemporary theories of punishment, concepts of proportionality have long been an instrumental part of the rule of law and an essential check on government power. Two renowned legal scholars seek to advance such a theory

Proportionality has been used as an analytical method in the constitutional jurisprudence of courts around the world, including in Australia. The method has not, however, been free from controversy. Since its first introduction into Australian constitutional law, there have been debates regarding the appropriateness of proportionality testing in this context.To date, these debates have been lacking in one important respect: they have not been sufficiently grounded in theory. In times when the global literature on the subject was relatively nascent and applications in comparative constitutional contexts sparse, the under-theorisation of Australian proportionality was understandable. This is no longer the case. The burgeoning international literature and jurisprudence in this field has in recent years generated a rich body of judicial and academic thought from which to elicit a properly theorised consideration of proportionality. Drawing on these resources, this thesis proposes a theoretical framework for proportionality. It uses this framework to explore a key question in the Australian context: when is proportionality an appropriate analytical tool in constitutional jurisprudence? In examining this question, the thesis considers the primary concerns regarding the appropriateness of proportionality in Australian constitutional law and how these might be addressed. It also makes principled suggestions for the development of Australian doctrine.

The right of States to use force extraterritorially is conditioned by requirements of necessity and proportionality. This book provides a detailed analysis of those requirements, and a coherent and up-to-date account of the applicable contemporary international law in this field.

"This book casts new light on the application of the principle of proportionality in international law. Proportionality is claimed to play a central role governing the exercise of public power in international law and has been presented as the 'ultimate rule of law'"--