Proportionality and Absolute Rights
In: Queen's University Legal Research Paper No. 073
4268 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Queen's University Legal Research Paper No. 073
SSRN
Working paper
SSRN
In: Human rights review: HRR, Band 11, Heft 2, S. 157-170
ISSN: 1874-6306
This paper offers a justification of the principle of military proportionality that is based in considerations of self-interest. By offering such a justification, I hope to vindicate the principle on the basis of the least controversial argument available. The war between Israel and Hezbollah in the summer of 2006 is used as a case study. Part 1 surveys recent work on military proportionality and suggests that the importance of this principle has increased in the age of asymmetrical warfare. Part 2 considers and rejects the traditional realist concerns about proportionality. Part 3 offers a realist rationale for adhering to the principle. Adapted from the source document.
In: 15 Criminal Law and Philosophy 425 (2021)
SSRN
In: SpringerBriefs in Law 7
The book applies the principle of proportionality to a number of conventional wisdoms in the social sciences, such as in dubio pro reo and the assumption that a crime is always a crime; that you must go to war if instructed to do so. Individuals and states are not obliged to come to the aid of stricken individuals and states. The book is organised in seven chapters, each dealing with a self-standing theme related to proportionality.
In: American Journal of Jurisprudence, Band 57
SSRN
In: Roberts, J.V. (2021) Promoting Proportionality Through Sentencing Guidelines. In: E. Billis (ed). Proportionality in Crime Control and Criminal Justice. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
SSRN
In: Law & ethics of human rights, Band 4, Heft 1, S. 1-16
ISSN: 1938-2545
This essay focuses on proportionality stricto sensu as a consequential test of balancing. The basic balancing rule establishes a general criterion for deciding between the marginal benefit to the public good and the marginal limit to human rights. Based on the Israeli constitutional jurisprudence, this essay supports the adoption of a principled balancing approach that translates the basic balancing rule into a series of principled balancing tests, taking into account the importance of the rights and the type of restriction. This approach provides better guidance to the balancer (legislator, administrator, judge), restricts wide discretion in balancing, and makes the act of balancing more transparent, more structured, and more foreseeable.The advantages of proportionality stricto sensu with its three levels of abstraction are several. It stresses the need to always look for a justification of a limit on human rights; it structures the mind of the balancer; it is transparent; it creates a proper dialog between the political brunches and the judiciary, and it adds to the objectivity of judicial discretion. Proportionality stricto sensu however has it critics: some claim that it attempts to balance incommensurable items; others that balancing is irrational. The answer to the critics is that it is a common base for comparison, namely the social marginal importance and that the balancing rules—basic, principled, concrete—supply a rational basis for balancing. A democracy must entrust the judiciary—the unelected independent judiciary—to be the final decision-maker—subject to constitutional amendments—about proper ends that cannot be achieved because they are not proportionality stricto sensu.
In: COMPARATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, 2d ed., Susan Rose-Ackerman, Peter L. Lindseth & Blake Emerson, eds., Edward Elgar Publishing, 2017
SSRN
In: Revus - Journal for Constitutional Theory and Philosophy of Law (2014) 22. 51-65
SSRN
In: Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 2022-28
SSRN
In: Philosophy & public affairs, Band 33, Heft 1, S. 34-66
ISSN: 0048-3915