Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:46:29.177Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constitutional Reasoning as Legitimacy of Constitutional Comparison

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Konrad Lachmayer

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

For ten years, the legitimacy of constitutional comparison in courts has been intensely debated. The case law of the U.S. Supreme Court led to an intense discussion on constitutional comparison and reached its peak with the Great Debate between Justice Scalia and Justice Breyer. Justice Breyer argued in favor of constitutional comparison while Justice Scalia refused the comparative approach. Justice Scalia stated:

[Y]ou are talking about using foreign law to determine the content of American constitutional law—to be sure that we're on the right track, that we have the same moral and legal framework as the rest of the world. But we don't have the same moral and legal framework as the rest of the world, and never have. If you told the framers of the Constitution that we're to be just like Europe, they would have been appalled. If you read the Federalist Papers, they are full of statements that make very clear the framers didn't have a whole lot of respect for many of the rules in European countries. Madison, for example, speaks contemptuously of the countries of continental Europe, “who are afraid to let their people bear arms.’

Type
Part B: Technique, Doctrine and Internal Logic of Constitutional Reasoning
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 14 , Issue 8: Special Issue - Constitutional Reasoning , 01 August 2013 , pp. 1463 - 1491
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 See generally Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003); Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).Google Scholar

2 See generally Dorsen, Norman, The Relevance of Foreign Legal Materials in U.S. Constitutional Cases: A Conversation Between Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Stephen Breyer, 3 Int'l J. of Const. L. 519 (2005), available at http://icon.oxfordjournals.org/content/3/4/519.extract.Google Scholar

3 Id. at 521.Google Scholar

4 Id. at 521.Google Scholar

5 See Halmai, Gábor, The Use of Foreign Law in Constitutional Interpretation, in The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law 1328, 1330 (Michel Rosenfeld & András Sajó eds., 2012). See generally Vicki Jackson, Constitutional Engagement in the Transnational Era (2010); Christoph Bezemek, Dangerous Dicta? Verfassungsvergleichung in der Rechtsprechung des US Supreme Court, 18 J. für Rechtspolitik 207 (2010); Iris Eisenberger, Wer fürchtet sich vor einem Verfassungsrechtsvergleich? Gedanken zur Rechtsvergleichung in der Judikatur des US Supreme Court, 18 J. für Rechtspolitik 216 (2010).Google Scholar

6 See Saunders, Cheryl, Judicial Engagement with Comparative Law, in Comparative Constitutional Law 571, 590 (Tom Ginsburg & Rosalind Dixon eds., 2011).Google Scholar

7 Id. Google Scholar

8 Id. at 586.Google Scholar

9 With regard to the debate on § 39, para. 3 of the South African Constitution, see Anna Gamper, Regeln der Verfassungsinterpretation 7–28 (2012).Google Scholar

10 See generally The Use of Foreign Precedents by Constitutional Judges 1 (Tania Groppi & Marie-Claire Ponthoreau eds., 2013).Google Scholar

11 See generally Anne-Marie Slaughter, A New World Order 65 (2004); Geir Ulfstein, The International Judiciary, in The Constitutionalization of International Law 126 (2009).Google Scholar

12 See Loughlin, Martin, Foundations of Public Law 209 (2010).Google Scholar

13 See Tushnet, Mark, The Possibilities of Comparative Constitutional Law, 108 Yale L.J. 1225, 1309 (1999).Google Scholar

14 See Saunders, , supra note 6, at 585: “The straightforward answer to this objection … is that it overstates the way in which foreign law is used. National judges are not obliged to engage with foreign law. When they do so they are accountable for its use in the ordinary way, which includes published reasons for decision.”Google Scholar

15 See Rosenfeld, Michel, The Identity of the Constitutional Subject: Selfhood, Citizenship, Culture, and Community 21 (2010).Google Scholar

16 See generally Walker, Neil, The Idea of Constitutional Pluralism, 65 Mod. L. Rev. 317 (2002).Google Scholar

17 See Teubner, Gunther, Constitutional Fragments: Societal Constitutionalism and Globalization 74 (2012).Google Scholar

18 See Kemmerer, Alexandra, The Normative Knot 2.0: Metaphorological Explorations in the Net of Networks, 10 German L.J. 439, 456 (2009).Google Scholar

19 See the religion-based concept of pluralism by Diana Eck. Diana Eck, What is Pluralism?, The Pluralism Project, http://pluralism.org/pages/pluralism/what_is_pluralism (last visited June 26, 2013). See generally from the perspective of political theory, William E. Connolly, Pluralism (2005).Google Scholar

20 See Jackson, , supra note 5, at 71, 103.Google Scholar

21 See Cohn, Margit, Domestic Sovereignty: Hierarchies, Dialogues and Networks, in Sovereignty in Question (Richard Rawlings, Peter Leyland & Alison Young eds., forthcoming).Google Scholar

22 See Loughlin, , supra note 12.Google Scholar

23 See András Sajó, Limiting Government: An Introduction to Constitutionalism 7 (1999).Google Scholar

24 See Schütze, Robert, Federalism as Constitutional Pluralism: ‘Letter from America,’ in Constitutional Pluralism in the European Union and Beyond 185, 185 (Matej Avbelj & Jan Komárek eds., 2012).Google Scholar

25 See Grimm, Dieter, Souveränität: Herkunft und Zukunft Eines Schlüsselbegriffs 54 (2009).Google Scholar

26 See Fleiner, Thomas & Fleiner, Lidija Basta, Constitutional Democracy in a Multicultural and Globalised World 559 (2009).Google Scholar

27 The question of legitimacy of such entities in a political understanding beyond the state will be discussed later. See infra Part C.III.Google Scholar

28 See Schütze, Robert, European Constitutional Law 37 (2012).Google Scholar

29 See Schütze, Robert, From Dual to Cooperative Federalism: The Changing Structure of European Law 241 (2009).Google Scholar

30 See Schütze, supra note 28, at 60.Google Scholar

31 See Schütze, supra note 24.Google Scholar

32 See generally Klabbers, Jan, Anne Peters & Geir Ulfstein, The Constitutionalization of International Law (2009).Google Scholar

33 See Peters, Anne, Rechtsordnungen und Konstitutionalisierung: Zur Neubestimmung der Verhältnisse, 65 Zeitschrift für Öffentliches Recht 3, 13 (2010); Thomas Kleinlein, Konstitutionalisierung im Völkerrecht: Konstruktion und Elemente einer idealistischen Völkerrechtslehre 517 (2012).Google Scholar

34 See Peters, Anne, Membership in the Global Constitutional Community, in The Constitutionalization of International Law 153, 157 (Jan Klabbers, Anne Peters & Geir Ulfstein eds., 2009).Google Scholar

35 See generally Bogdandy, Armin von & Venzke, Ingo, Beyond Dispute: International Judicial Institutions as Lawmakers, 12 German L.J. 979 (2011).Google Scholar

36 See generally Wet, Erika de, The International Constitutional Order, 55 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 51 (2006).Google Scholar

37 See Peters, Anne, Das Gründungsdokument internationaler Organisationen als Verfassungsvertrag, 68 Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht 1 (2013).Google Scholar

38 Globalization and the rise of global-acting transnational corporations furthermore led to a culmination of state power in the private sphere.Google Scholar

39 See Calliess, Gralf-Peter & Zumbansen, Peer, Rough Consensus and Running Code: A Theory of Transnational Private Law 108 (2010).Google Scholar

40 See generally Berman, Paul Schiff, Global Legal Pluralism, 80 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1155 (2007).Google Scholar

41 See Teubner, , supra note 17.Google Scholar

42 See id. at 51.Google Scholar

43 Id. at 74.Google Scholar

44 See id. Google Scholar

45 Walker, , supra note 16, at 317, 358.Google Scholar

46 Eck, , supra note 19.Google Scholar

47 Connolly, , supra note 19, at 41.Google Scholar

48 Id. at 67.Google Scholar

49 Bleiker, Roland, Visualizing Post-National Democracy, in The New Pluralism. William Connolly and the Contemporary Global Condition 121, 130 (David Campell & Morton Schoolman eds., 2008)Google Scholar

50 Krisch, Nico, Beyond Constitutionalism. The Pluralist Structure of Postnational Law 78 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

51 Id. at 79.Google Scholar

52 Id. at 81.Google Scholar

53 Id. at 85.Google Scholar

54 Id. at 103.Google Scholar

55 Id. at 40, 67, 103.Google Scholar

56 See Walker, , supra note 16.Google Scholar

57 See Loughlin, Martin, The Idea of Public Law 72 (2003); Loughlin, supra note 12, at 184; Grimm, supra note 25, at 35.Google Scholar

58 See Loughlin, , supra note 12, at 191.Google Scholar

59 See Grimm, , supra note 25, at 35.Google Scholar

60 See Sajó, supra note 23.Google Scholar

61 Id. at 205, 225, 245.Google Scholar

62 See Teubner, , supra note 17, at 88.Google Scholar

63 See references, Loughlin, supra note 57.Google Scholar

64 See Rosenfeld, , supra note 15.Google Scholar

65 See Hanschmann, Felix, Der Begriff der Homogenität in der Verfassungslehre und Europarechtswissenschaft (2008).Google Scholar

66 See Rosenfeld, , supra note 15 at 211.Google Scholar

67 But see contrary developments in the case law of the U.S. Supreme Court, e.g., Morrison v. Nat'l Australia Bank Ltd., 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010); Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, 133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013).Google Scholar

68 See generally Tamanaha, Brian Z., Understanding Legal Pluralism: Past to Present, Local to Global, 30 Sydney L. Rev. 375 (2008); John Griffiths, What is Legal Pluralism? 24 J. Legal Pluralism 1 (1986), available at http://keur.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/wetenschappers/2/11886/11886.pdf.Google Scholar

69 See Teubner, , supra note 17, at 51.Google Scholar

70 “Totality is no longer a relevant quality of constitutions, if ever it was.” Anne Peters, The Constitutionaliation of International Organisations, in Europe's Constitutional Mosaic 253, 285 (Neil Walker, Jo Shaw & Stephen Tierney eds., 2011).Google Scholar

71 See generally Lindahl, Hans, Recognition as Domination: Constitutionalism, Reciprocity and the Problem of Singularity, in Europe's Constitutional Mosaic 205 (Neil Walker, Jo Shaw & Stephen Tierney eds., 2011).Google Scholar

72 See Bogdandy, Armin von, Grundprinzipien, in Europäisches Verfassungsrecht 13, 36 (Armin von Bogdandy & Jürgen Bast eds., 2d ed., 2009).Google Scholar

73 See Peters, , supra note 34, at 153, 167.Google Scholar

74 See Hirschl, Ran, Towards Juristocracy: The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism 211 (2007).Google Scholar

75 See generally Tamanaha, Brian Z., On the Rule of Law: History, Politics, Theory 1 (2004); Tom Bingham, The Rule of Law 1 (2011).Google Scholar

76 See generally Sobota, Katharina, Das Prinzip Rechtsstaat (1997).Google Scholar

77 See Tamanaha, , supra note 68; Griffiths, supra note 68.Google Scholar

78 See generally Chesterman, Simon, An International Rule of Law?, 56 Am. J. Comp. L. 331 (2008).Google Scholar

79 See generally Benedict Kingsbury, Nico Krisch & Stewart, Richard B., The Emergence of Global Administrative Law, 68 Law & Contemp. Probs. 15 (2005), available at http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1361&context=lcp [hereinafter Global Administrative Law].Google Scholar

80 See Schütze, supra note 28, at 62, 74.Google Scholar

81 See Bogdandy, , supra note 72, at 66.Google Scholar

82 See Somek, Alexander, Über kosmopolitische Selbstbestimmung, 50 Der Staat 329, 330, 348 (2011).Google Scholar

83 See Teubner, , supra note 17, at 114.Google Scholar

84 See Peters, , supra note 70, at 253.Google Scholar

85 See Somek, Alexander, Postconstitutional Treaty, 8 German L.J. 1121, 1126 (2007); Global Administrative Law, supra note 79. See generally Nico Krisch & Benedict Kingsbury, Introduction: Global Governance and Global Administrative Law in the International Legal Order, 17 Eur. J. Int'L L. 1 (2006), available at http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/17/1/64.pdf.Google Scholar

86 See especially Klabbers, Jan, Anne Peters & Geir Ulfstein, supra note 32.Google Scholar

87 See Teubner, , supra note 17, at 51.Google Scholar

88 See, e.g., Mark Tushnet, Weak Courts, Strong Rights: Judicial Review and Social Welfare Rights in Comparative Constitutional Law 5 (2008).Google Scholar

89 See infra Part B.Google Scholar

90 See Hirschl, , supra note 74.Google Scholar

91 See Perju, Vlad, Constitutional Transplants, Borrowing and Migrations, in The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law 1304, 1324 (Michel Rosenfeld & András Sajó eds., 2012).Google Scholar

92 See Halmai, , supra note 5, at 1346.Google Scholar

93 See Jackson, , supra note 5, at 17, 71.Google Scholar

94 See Chang, Wen-Chen & Yeh, Jiunn-Rong, Internationalization of Constitutional Law, in The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law 1165, 1166 (Michel Rosenfeld & András Sajó eds., 2012).Google Scholar

95 See generally Mamlyuk, Boris N. & Mattei, Ugo, Comparative International Law, 36 Brook. J. Int'l L. 385 (2011); Anthea Roberts, Comparative International Law? The Role of National Courts in Creating and Enforcing International Law, 60 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 57 (2011).Google Scholar

96 See generally Fidler, David, The Globalization of Public Health: Emerging Infectious Diseases and International Relations, 5 Ind. J. Global Legal Stud. 11 (1997), available at http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1107&context=ijgls; Obijiofor Aginam, Between Isolationism and Mutual Vulnerability: A South-North Perspective on Global Governance of Epidemics in an Age of Globalization, 77 Temp. L. Rev. 297, 305 (2004), available at http://www.temple.edu/lawschool/iilpp/Docs/Aginam,%20Final%20to%20Publisher,%2011-23-04.pdf.Google Scholar

97 See Frankenberg, Günther, Comparing Constitutions – Toward a Layered Narrative, 4 Int'l J. of Const. L. 439 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

98 See generally Dannemann, Gerhard, Comparative Law: Study of Similarities or Differences?, in The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law 383 (Mathias Reimann & Reinhard Zimmermann eds., 2006).Google Scholar

99 See Baer, Susanne, Verfassungsvergleichung und reflexive Methode: Interkulturelle und intersubjektive Kompetenz, 64 Heidelberg J. Int'l L. 735, 735 (2004), available at http://www.zaoerv.de/64_2004/64_2004_3_a_735_758.pdf.Google Scholar

100 See Tushnet, , supra note 88.Google Scholar