vix.ing · top · new · best · stats · spec

Deference in Human Rights Adjudication

2024/06/20 by Cora Chan · 1 voice
Economics, Econometrics and Finance · Social Sciences · #Criminal Law and Evidence #Judicial and Constitutional Studies #Legal and Constitutional Studies

paper · doi:10.1093/9780198921677.001.0001

openalex publication_date 2024/06/20 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/05/21

Abstract

Abstract In human rights adjudication, courts sometimes face issues that they lack the expertise or constitutional legitimacy to resolve. One way of dealing with such issues is to ‘defer’, or accord a margin of appreciation, to the judgments of public authorities. Although there is a rich literature on the subject of deference, two important questions remain unresolved: what devices courts should use to exercise deference, and how deference can be made more workable for judges and predictable for litigants. This book offers the first comprehensive analysis of these questions. It introduces six devices for deference (namely, the burden of proof, standard of proof, standard of review, giving of weight, choice of interpretation, and choice of remedy), analyses how courts should choose amongst them, and proposes techniques for rendering deference practicable. The book’s arguments will enable human rights adjudication to be more principled and more in line with the rule of law and separation of powers. The book has two distinctive features. First, it engages with the jurisprudence of six common law jurisdictions that apply a structured proportionality test in rights adjudication, namely, Canada, Hong Kong, Ireland, Israel, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Second, the book offers guidelines for judges who wish to apply its theoretical arguments. Combining theory with practice in a broad range of jurisdictions, the book will be an important reference for researchers and students of constitutional theory, comparative constitutional law, and human rights law around the world. It will also assist practitioners, judges, and policymakers who have to grapple with issues of deference in adjudication.

Citations

Discussions

Related