Search results

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

In the modern epoch many countries, including China and Russia, have developed market economies of differing types. This work provides an analysis of the laws of market regulation, state regulation and proportional development, as well as an analysis of the relations between them, all of which are of exceptional scientific and political significance. The law of proportionality is a universal law of social production and of the national economy. The law of market regulation (the law of value) represents an important mechanism for implementing the law of proportionality in a commodity economy, and has played a decisive role in the application of this latter law from the time when the simple commodity economy was transformed into a capitalist commodity economy. The law of state regulation (the law of planning) is the means of realisation of the law of proportionality in collectivised production and in a state-regulated national economy. In China's socialist market economy the law of state regulation (the law of planning) and the law of market regulation (the law of value) are combined into an organic whole with fruitful, mutually reinforcing functions and synergetic effects, in order to bring the law of proportional development into play and to banish the old economic problem of disproportions in economic development. Through these methods, a larger mass of production can be achieved with a smaller expenditure of resources, while obtaining maximum benefit and bringing about a high level of economic and social well-being.

Across a broad range of subjects, there is now wide agreement that the principle of proportionality governs the extent to which a provocation may lawfully be countered by what might otherwise be an unlawful response. That is the central role assigned to proportionality in international law and it is deeply rooted in the cultural history of societies. However, if the core institutions of a legal system are too weak to be relied upon to take remedial action against wrongdoers, then they must at least be authorized to license appropriate action by the wronged party and to insure that its response remains within prescribed parameters.The practice described in this essay demonstrates that a high degree of accord is emerging across a broad range of issues to the appropriate standards by which the proportionality of countermeasures can be assessed. The practice of various institutions authorized to render second opinions as to the compliance with those standards is gradually narrowing the range of indeterminacy inherent in the term proportionality. Some of this case law has been disappointingly episodic. The well-crafted second opinion, through its precision, its invocation of precedent, and its careful weighing of the probity of the facts presented to it, deepens and narrows the jurisprudential stream while strengthening its embankments.If applied in practice through second opinions rendered by legitimate institutions, proportionality is an example of an indeterminate principle becoming gradually empowered to provide persuasive answers to difficult questions and, thereby, case by case, building the objective determinacy of the principle.

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.