Judicial Review and the Politics of Comparative Citations: Theory, Evidence & Methodological Challenges

Forthcoming in: Comparative Judicial Review Erin F. Delaney and Rosalind Dixon, eds. (Edward Elgar, 2018)

20 Pages Posted: 29 May 2017 Last revised: 31 Jul 2018

Date Written: May 28, 2017

Abstract

What explains where, when and how the judicial imagination travels in its search for comparative reference? Possible answers emanate from: (i) historical accounts of engagement with the constitutive laws of others that examine episodes of selective constitutional borrowing and reference; (ii) comparative public law scholarship that stresses the significance of various structural and disciplinary elements, most notably legal training, legal tradition and linguistic capacity, in elucidating patterns of transnational judicial dialogue; and (iii) from social science accounts that stress the significance of strategic and socio-political factors in explaining selective judicial engagement with the constitutive laws of others. In this chapter, I elucidate the main findings and assess the contribution of each of these approaches.

Keywords: comparative constitutional law; judicial review; comparative reference; comparative citations; constitutional borrowing; constitutional identity

Suggested Citation

Hirschl, Ran, Judicial Review and the Politics of Comparative Citations: Theory, Evidence & Methodological Challenges (May 28, 2017). Forthcoming in: Comparative Judicial Review Erin F. Delaney and Rosalind Dixon, eds. (Edward Elgar, 2018), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2975986

Ran Hirschl (Contact Author)

University of Toronto ( email )

100 St. George Street
Toronto, Ontario M5S3G3
Canada

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
269
Abstract Views
1,475
Rank
205,883
PlumX Metrics