English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT
Add to Basket
  Local TagsRelease HistoryDetailsSummary

Released
Contribution to Collected Edition

Judicial review and the politics of comparative citations: Theory, evidence and methodological challenges

MPS-Authors
/persons/resource/persons217511

Hirschl,  Ran
Fellow Group Comparative Constitutionalism, MPI for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity, Max Planck Society;

External Resource

https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/comparative-judicial-review
(Supplementary material)

https://ssrn.com/abstract=2975986
(Any fulltext)

Fulltext (restricted access)
There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.
Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts stored in PuRe
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Hirschl, R. (2018). Judicial review and the politics of comparative citations: Theory, evidence and methodological challenges. In E. F. Delaney, & R. Dixon (Eds.), Comparative Judicial Review (pp. 403-422). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.


Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-0001-F491-7
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.