Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Constitutionalism is the permanent quest to control state power, of which the judicial review of legislation is a prime example. Although the judicial review of legislation is increasingly common in modern societies, it is not a finished project. This device still raises questions as to whether judicial review is justified, and how it may be structured. Yet, judicial review's justification and its scope are seldom addressed in the same study, thereby making for an inconvenient divorce of these two related avenues of study. To narrow the divide, the object of this work is quite straightforward. Namely, is the idea of judicial review defensible, and what influences its design and scope? This book addresses these matters by comparing the judicial review of legislation in the United Kingdom (the Human Rights Act of 1998), the Netherlands (the Halsema Proposal of 2002) and the Constitution of South Africa of 1996. These systems present valuable material to study the issues raised by judicial review. The Netherlands is of particular interest as its Constitution still prohibits the constitutional review of acts of parliament, while allowing treaty review of such acts. The Halsema Proposal wants to even out this difference by allowing the courts also to apply constitutional norms to legislation and not only to international norms. The Human Rights Act and the South African Constitution also present interesting questions that will make their study worthwhile. One can think of the issue of dialogue between the legislature and the judiciary. This topic enjoys increased attention in the United Kingdom but is somewhat underexplored in South African thought on judicial review. These and similar issues are studied in each of the three systems, to not only gain a better understanding of the systems as such, but also of judicial review in general.

Politics --- Legal theory and methods. Philosophy of law --- International private law --- Public law. Constitutional law --- Private law --- filosofie --- politiek --- recht --- burgerlijk recht --- grondrechten --- internationaal privaatrecht --- staatsrecht --- grondwet

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Constitutionalism is the permanent quest to control state power, of which the judicial review of legislation is a prime example. Although the judicial review of legislation is increasingly common in modern societies, it is not a finished project. This device still raises questions as to whether judicial review is justified, and how it may be structured. Yet, judicial review's justification and its scope are seldom addressed in the same study, thereby making for an inconvenient divorce of these two related avenues of study. To narrow the divide, the object of this work is quite straightforward. Namely, is the idea of judicial review defensible, and what influences its design and scope? This book addresses these matters by comparing the judicial review of legislation in the United Kingdom (the Human Rights Act of 1998), the Netherlands (the Halsema Proposal of 2002) and the Constitution of South Africa of 1996. These systems present valuable material to study the issues raised by judicial review. The Netherlands is of particular interest as its Constitution still prohibits the constitutional review of acts of parliament, while allowing treaty review of such acts. The Halsema Proposal wants to even out this difference by allowing the courts also to apply constitutional norms to legislation and not only to international norms. The Human Rights Act and the South African Constitution also present interesting questions that will make their study worthwhile. One can think of the issue of dialogue between the legislature and the judiciary. This topic enjoys increased attention in the United Kingdom but is somewhat underexplored in South African thought on judicial review. These and similar issues are studied in each of the three systems, to not only gain a better understanding of the systems as such, but also of judicial review in general.

Politics --- Legal theory and methods. Philosophy of law --- International private law --- Public law. Constitutional law --- Private law --- filosofie --- politiek --- recht --- burgerlijk recht --- grondrechten --- internationaal privaatrecht --- staatsrecht --- grondwet

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Juliano Z. Benvindo investigates the current movement of constitutional courts towards political activism, especially by focusing on the increasing use of the balancing method as a rational  justification for this process. From the critical perception of the serious risks of this movement to democracy, the book takes as examples two constitutional realities, Germany and Brazil, in order to discuss the rationality, correctness, and legitimacy of constitutional decisions within this context. Through a dialogue between Jacques Derrida's deconstruction and Jürgen Habermas's proceduralism, the author confronts Robert Alexy's defense of the balancing method as well as those two constitutional realities. This confrontation leads to the introduction of the concept of limited rationality applied to constitutional democracy and constitutional adjudication, which affirms the double bind of history and justice as a condition for a practice of decision-making committed to the principle of separation of powers.

Politics --- Legal theory and methods. Philosophy of law --- Public law. Constitutional law --- Law --- History --- filosofie --- geschiedenis --- politiek --- recht --- grondrechten --- staatsrecht --- grondwet

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

The debate over the foundations and boundaries of freedom of speech, once a matter of balancing the individual rights of unpopular speakers against broader social interests, took on a new shape in the 1980s when feminists began to advocate restrictions on pornography and critical race theorists to advocate restriction of certain kinds of hate speech. These challenges to traditional liberalism brought into sharp focus the issues of why we value free speech and how much weight it should be given against competing values. Difficult as it is to resolve these issues domestically, we now face new challenges arising from the increasingly rapid dissemination of information across international borders in an atmosphere of considerable political tension. The riots in response to the publication of Danish cartoons ridiculing Mohammed and the death threats against Salman Rushdie indicate how dramatically the stakes have been raised. At the same time, there is increased concern over discriminatory treatment of sexual minorities, Muslims, and immigrants. Against this background, the essays in this volume seek to illuminate why we value freedom of speech and expression and how this freedom can be weighed against other values, such as multicultural sensitivity, the rights of racial and sexual minorities, and the prevention of violence, both domestically and internationally.

Political philosophy. Social philosophy --- Politics --- Legal theory and methods. Philosophy of law --- Human rights --- Public law. Constitutional law --- Law --- History --- mensenrechten --- minderheden --- filosofie --- geschiedenis --- politiek --- politieke filosofie --- recht --- grondrechten --- staatsrecht --- grondwet

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Le droit des médias est celui de toutes les formes d'expression (écrites, sonores, visuelles et audiovisuelles) et techniques de communication publique (presse, radio, télévision, film, livre, affiche, supports numériques, communication au public en ligne...), de la presse à l'internet, de l'écrit à l'écran, des médias au multimédia, quel qu'en soit le contenu (information d'actualité, documentation, fiction, divertissement, publicité...). Dès lors qu'il y a publication, le droit des médias a vocation à s'y appliquer. Mettant en oeuvre les principes de liberté d'expression et de droit à l'information, le droit des médias constitue une composante fondamentale, constructive et caractéristique d'une société démocratique. La nature du régime politique et la condition de chacun en dépendent. Le droit des médias est envisagé ici dans ses thèmes et éléments essentiels : droit économique (entreprises et activités), droit des professionnels (journalistes), droit de la responsabilité, droit d'auteur et droits voisins. Dans un contexte général d'internationalisation ou de mondialisation, les médias ignorent les frontières. Il doit en être de même de leur droit. À l'étude du droit français des médias, il a donc été nécessaire d'ajouter une présentation du droit européen et international des médias. Au-delà des étudiants en droit, science politique, communication, journalisme... ce "manuel" s'adresse aussi aux professionnels des médias (journalistes, éditeurs, responsables de programmation, publicitaires...) et du droit (avocats ; magistrats ; juristes d'entreprises, d'organisations professionnelles, d'institutions publiques... spécialisés) et, plus largement, à tout citoyen soucieux d'un droit contribuant à l'existence de médias de qualité satisfaisant le droit du public à l'information et à la culture. Le rôle politique, social, culturel joué par les médias dans les sociétés modernes accroît l'importance du droit des médias et de sa connaissance.

Mass media --- Médias --- Law and legislation. --- Law and legislation --- Droit --- 341 --- 351.751 <4> --- Internationaal recht. Volkenrecht --(algemeen) --- Mediarecht. Vrijwaren van de vrijheid van denken, van de persvrijheid. Censuur. Filmcensuur. Reclamerecht--(Fundamentele vrijheden in de grondwet zie {342.732})--Europa --- 351.751 <4> Mediarecht. Vrijwaren van de vrijheid van denken, van de persvrijheid. Censuur. Filmcensuur. Reclamerecht--(Fundamentele vrijheden in de grondwet zie {342.732})--Europa --- 341 Internationaal recht. Volkenrecht --(algemeen) --- Médias