Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 10 - Nonjudicial Constitutional Interpretation: The Netherlands

  • from IV - Constitutional Adjudication and Interpretation
  • Edited by David S. Law, University of Virginia
  • Book:
    Constitutionalism in Context
    Published online:
    17 February 2022
    Print publication:
    17 February 2022, pp 216-235

  • Summary

    This chapter will focus on the manner in which non-judicial actors engage in constitutional guardianship, using the Netherlands as a case study. Article 120 of the Dutch Constitution explicitly prohibits courts from examining the constitutionality of Acts of Parliament. Accordingly, it has fallen to other institutions to ensure that constitutional rules and values are duly taken into account, especially when new legislation is under consideration. The chapter will focus in particular on the role that governments and civil servants play in verifying a bill’s constitutional conformity during the drafting stage; on the Council of State, which is tasked with providing non-partisan advice to the government on new bills; and on how Parliament itself goes about confronting constitutional issues during legislative debates. The Dutch experience shows that it is possible to successfully ensure constitutional supremacy even when judges are not available to act as ultimate protectors of the national constitution.