"The metaphor of 'dialogue' has been put to different descriptive and evaluative uses by constitutional and political theorists studying interactions between institutions concerning rights. It has also featured prominently in the opinions of courts and the rhetoric and deliberations of legislators. This volume brings together many of the world's leading constitutional and political theorists to debate the nature and merits of constitutional dialogues between the judicial, legislative, and executive branches. Constitutional Dialogue explores dialogue's democratic significance, examines its relevance to the functioning and design of constitutional institutions, and explores constitutional dialogues from an international and transnational perspective"--
"The metaphor of 'dialogue' has been used to describe and evaluate institutional interactions and constitutional arrangements involving many of the most fundamental questions concerning democracy and rights. It has been put to a variety of descriptive and evaluative uses by constitutional and political theorists concerned with understanding interactions between democratic institutions, particularly interactions concerning rights. But it has also featured prominently in the opinions of courts, and even the rhetoric and deliberations of legislators. This volume brings together many of the world's leading constitutional and political theorists -both proponents and critics of dialogue theory. Together, they debate the nature and merits of constitutional dialogues between the judicial, legislative, and executive branches, explore dialogue's democratic and republican significance, examine its relevance to the functioning and design of different constitutional institutions, examine rights dialogues in specific constitutional contexts and cases of dialogue concerning certain rights, and explore constitutional dialogues from an international and transnational perspective"--
Papildus informācija
Identifies how and why 'dialogue' can describe and evaluate institutional interactions over constitutional questions concerning democracy and rights.
|
|
|
ix | |
| Preface and Acknowledgements |
|
xi | |
| Note on the Cover Image |
|
xii | |
|
1 Introduction: The `What' and `Why' of Constitutional Dialogue |
|
|
1 | (32) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PART I Dialogue and Democracy |
|
|
33 | (94) |
|
2 Dialogue and Its Myths: "Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not' |
|
|
35 | (33) |
|
|
|
3 Departmentalism and Dialogue |
|
|
68 | (17) |
|
|
|
4 On Dialogue and Domination |
|
|
85 | (42) |
|
|
|
PART II Dialogue and Institutions |
|
|
127 | (80) |
|
5 Past, Present, and Justice in the Exercise of Judicial Responsibility |
|
|
129 | (32) |
|
|
|
6 Constitutional `Dialogue' and Deference |
|
|
161 | (25) |
|
|
|
7 Dialogue, Finality and Legality |
|
|
186 | (21) |
|
|
|
PART III Dialogue and Rights |
|
|
207 | (128) |
|
8 Canada's Notwithstanding Clause, Dialogue, and Constitutional Identities |
|
|
209 | (26) |
|
|
|
9 Infra-Parliamentary Dialogues in New Zealand and the United Kingdom: A Little Less Conversation, a Little More Action Please |
|
|
235 | (32) |
|
|
|
|
|
10 Dialogue in Canada and the Dangers of Simplified Comparative Law and Populism |
|
|
267 | (41) |
|
|
|
11 Bills of Rights with Strings Attached: Protecting Death Penalty, Slavery, Discriminatory Religious Practices, and the Past from Judicial Review |
|
|
308 | (27) |
|
|
|
PART IV Case Studies of Dialogue |
|
|
335 | (86) |
|
12 Prisoners' Voting and Judges' Powers |
|
|
337 | (27) |
|
|
|
13 `All's Well That Ends Well?': Same-Sex Marriage and Constitutional Dialogue |
|
|
364 | (33) |
|
|
|
14 A Feature, Not a Bug: A Coordinate Moment in Canadian Constitutionalism |
|
|
397 | (24) |
|
|
|
PART V International and Transnational Dialogues |
|
|
421 | (45) |
|
15 Dialogue and Its Discontents |
|
|
423 | (13) |
|
|
|
16 Constitutional Conversations in Britain (in Europe) |
|
|
436 | (30) |
|
|
| Index |
|
466 | |
Geoffrey Sigalet is a post-doctoral fellow in the Faculty of Law at Queen's University and a non-resident fellow at the Stanford Constitutional Law Center, Stanford University, California. He completed his Ph.D. in political theory and public law at Princeton University, where his dissertation developed a neo-republican political theory of 'dialogical' judicial review and constitutional interpretation. Grégoire Webber holds the Canada Research Chair in Public Law and Philosophy of Law at Queen's University, Ontario and is a Visiting Senior Fellow at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He is the author of The Negotiable Constitution: On the Limitation of Rights (Cambridge, 2009), joint editor of Proportionality and the Rule of Law: Rights, Justification, Reasoning (Cambridge, 2014), and joint author of Legislated Rights: Securing Human Rights through Legislation (Cambridge, 2018). Rosalind Dixon is a Professor of Law, at University of New South Wales, Sydney, and Co-President of the International Society of Public Law. Her work has been published in leading journals in the US, Canada, the UK, and Australia. She was previously an assistant professor at the University of Chicago Law School, and has been a visiting professor at the University of Chicago, Columbia Law School, Harvard Law School, and the National University of Singapore.
