Deutsch
 
Hilfe Datenschutzhinweis Impressum
  DetailsucheBrowse

Datensatz

DATENSATZ AKTIONENEXPORT

Freigegeben

Beitrag in Sammelwerk

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

MPG-Autoren
/persons/resource/persons217511

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

Externe Ressourcen
Volltexte (beschränkter Zugriff)
Für Ihren IP-Bereich sind aktuell keine Volltexte freigegeben.
Volltexte (frei zugänglich)
Es sind keine frei zugänglichen Volltexte in PuRe verfügbar
Ergänzendes Material (frei zugänglich)
Es sind keine frei zugänglichen Ergänzenden Materialien verfügbar
Zitation

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.


Zitierlink: https://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-0001-F491-7
Zusammenfassung
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.