Constitutionalism is the permanent quest to control state power, of which the judicial review of legislation is a prime example. Although the judicial review of legislation is increasingly common in modern societies, it is not a finished project. This device still raises questions as to whether judicial review is justified, and how it may be structured. Yet, judicial review's justification and its scope are seldom addressed in the same study, thereby making for an inconvenient divorce of these two related avenues of study. To narrow the divide, the object of this work is quite straightforward. Namely, is the idea of judicial review defensible, and what influences its design and scope? This book addresses these matters by comparing the judicial review of legislation in the United Kingdom (the Human Rights Act of 1998), the Netherlands (the Halsema Proposal of 2002) and the Constitution of South Africa of 1996. These systems present valuable material to study the issues raised by judicial review. The Netherlands is of particular interest as its Constitution still prohibits the constitutional review of acts of parliament, while allowing treaty review of such acts. The Halsema Proposal wants to even out this difference by allowing the courts also to apply constitutional norms to legislation and not only to international norms. The Human Rights Act and the South African Constitution also present interesting questions that will make their study worthwhile. One can think of the issue of dialogue between the legislature and the judiciary. This topic enjoys increased attention in the United Kingdom but is somewhat underexplored in South African thought on judicial review. These and similar issues are studied in each of the three systems, to not only gain a better understanding of the systems as such, but also of judicial review in general.
"Sinopsis" puede pertenecer a otra edición de este libro.
Constitutionalism is the permanent quest to control state power, of which the judicial review of legislation is a prime example. Although the judicial review of legislation is increasingly common in modern societies, it is not a finished project. This device still raises questions as to whether judicial review is justified, and how it may be structured. Yet, judicial review s justification and its scope are seldom addressed in the same study, thereby making for an inconvenient divorce of these two related avenues of study. To narrow the divide, the object of this work is quite straightforward. Namely, is the idea of judicial review defensible, and what influences its design and scope? This book addresses these matters by comparing the judicial review of legislation in the United Kingdom (the Human Rights Act of 1998), the Netherlands (the Halsema Proposal of 2002) and the Constitution of South Africa of 1996. These systems present valuable material to study the issues raised by judicial review. The Netherlands is of particular interest as its Constitution still prohibits the constitutional review of acts of parliament, while allowing treaty review of such acts. The Halsema Proposal wants to even out this difference by allowing the courts also to apply constitutional norms to legislation and not only to international norms. The Human Rights Act and the South African Constitution also present interesting questions that will make their study worthwhile. One can think of the issue of dialogue between the legislature and the judiciary. This topic enjoys increased attention in the United Kingdom but is somewhat underexplored in South African thought on judicial review. These and similar issues are studied in each of the three systems, to not only gain a better understanding of the systems as such, but also of judicial review in general.
"Sobre este título" puede pertenecer a otra edición de este libro.
Librería: James Payne, Books and Prints, New York City, NY, Estados Unidos de America
Hardcover. Condición: Fine. First Edition. [LAW]. Gerhard van der Schyff. "Judicial Review of Legislation: A Comparative Study of the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and South Africa (Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice 5)." Cham, CH: Springer, 2010. First edition. 234 pp. Text clean. Like New to Fine. Nº de ref. del artículo: 08051
Cantidad disponible: 1 disponibles
Librería: Brook Bookstore On Demand, Napoli, NA, Italia
Condición: new. Questo è un articolo print on demand. Nº de ref. del artículo: 3ac7eba5e321fb7210376bcef05281ea
Cantidad disponible: Más de 20 disponibles
Librería: GreatBookPrices, Columbia, MD, Estados Unidos de America
Condición: New. Nº de ref. del artículo: 9568775-n
Cantidad disponible: 15 disponibles
Librería: California Books, Miami, FL, Estados Unidos de America
Condición: New. Nº de ref. del artículo: I-9789048190010
Cantidad disponible: Más de 20 disponibles
Librería: BuchWeltWeit Ludwig Meier e.K., Bergisch Gladbach, Alemania
Buch. Condición: Neu. This item is printed on demand - it takes 3-4 days longer - Neuware -Constitutionalism is the permanent quest to control state power, of which the judicial review of legislation is a prime example. Although the judicial review of legislation is increasingly common in modern societies, it is not a finished project. This device still raises questions as to whether judicial review is justified, and how it may be structured. Yet, judicial review's justification and its scope are seldom addressed in the same study, thereby making for an inconvenient divorce of these two related avenues of study. To narrow the divide, the object of this work is quite straightforward. Namely, is the idea of judicial review defensible, and what influences its design and scope This book addresses these matters by comparing the judicial review of legislation in the United Kingdom (the Human Rights Act of 1998), the Netherlands (the Halsema Proposal of 2002) and the Constitution of South Africa of 1996. These systems present valuable material to study the issues raised by judicial review. The Netherlands is of particular interest as its Constitution still prohibits the constitutional review of acts of parliament, while allowing treaty review of such acts. The Halsema Proposal wants to even out this difference by allowing the courts also to apply constitutional norms to legislation and not only to international norms. The Human Rights Act and the South African Constitution also present interesting questions that will make their study worthwhile. One can think of the issue of dialogue between the legislature and the judiciary. This topic enjoys increased attention in the United Kingdom but is somewhat underexplored in South African thought on judicial review. These and similar issues are studied in each of the three systems, to not only gain a better understanding of the systems as such, but also of judicial review in general. 220 pp. Englisch. Nº de ref. del artículo: 9789048190010
Cantidad disponible: 2 disponibles
Librería: moluna, Greven, Alemania
Gebunden. Condición: New. Nº de ref. del artículo: 458800222
Cantidad disponible: Más de 20 disponibles
Librería: GreatBookPricesUK, Woodford Green, Reino Unido
Condición: New. Nº de ref. del artículo: 9568775-n
Cantidad disponible: Más de 20 disponibles
Librería: Ria Christie Collections, Uxbridge, Reino Unido
Condición: New. In English. Nº de ref. del artículo: ria9789048190010_new
Cantidad disponible: Más de 20 disponibles
Librería: AHA-BUCH GmbH, Einbeck, Alemania
Buch. Condición: Neu. Druck auf Anfrage Neuware - Printed after ordering - Constitutionalism is the permanent quest to control state power, of which the judicial review of legislation is a prime example. Although the judicial review of legislation is increasingly common in modern societies, it is not a finished project. This device still raises questions as to whether judicial review is justified, and how it may be structured. Yet, judicial review's justification and its scope are seldom addressed in the same study, thereby making for an inconvenient divorce of these two related avenues of study. To narrow the divide, the object of this work is quite straightforward. Namely, is the idea of judicial review defensible, and what influences its design and scope This book addresses these matters by comparing the judicial review of legislation in the United Kingdom (the Human Rights Act of 1998), the Netherlands (the Halsema Proposal of 2002) and the Constitution of South Africa of 1996. These systems present valuable material to study the issues raised by judicial review. The Netherlands is of particular interest as its Constitution still prohibits the constitutional review of acts of parliament, while allowing treaty review of such acts. The Halsema Proposal wants to even out this difference by allowing the courts also to apply constitutional norms to legislation and not only to international norms. The Human Rights Act and the South African Constitution also present interesting questions that will make their study worthwhile. One can think of the issue of dialogue between the legislature and the judiciary. This topic enjoys increased attention in the United Kingdom but is somewhat underexplored in South African thought on judicial review. These and similar issues are studied in each of the three systems, to not only gain a better understanding of the systems as such, but also of judicial review in general. Nº de ref. del artículo: 9789048190010
Cantidad disponible: 2 disponibles
Librería: Books Puddle, Woodside, NY, Estados Unidos de America
Condición: New. pp. 244. Nº de ref. del artículo: 261400999
Cantidad disponible: 4 disponibles