Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2173690
 
 

Footnotes (96)



 


 



A Critique of Proportionality


Francisco J. Urbina


University of Oxford - Oriel College

2012

American Journal of Jurisprudence, Vol. 57, 2012

Abstract:     
In this article I argue against the proportionality test in human rights adjudication. I discuss two conceptions of proportionality. One sees proportionality as a doctrinal tool that optimizes rights and public interests. The other sees proportionality as allowing for open-ended moral reasoning. I argue against both conceptions separately, and conclude that defenders of proportionality are in the following dilemma: either proportionality is insensitive to important moral considerations related to human rights and their limitations, and thus it is an unsuitable tool for human rights adjudication; or proportionality can accommodate the relevant moral considerations, but at the price of leaving the judge undirected, unaided by the law. I will further argue that lack of guidance is a deficiency in legal adjudication, which has some concrete negative effects.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 32

Keywords: Proportionality, Human Rights, Jurisprudence, Philosophy of Law, Constitutional Law

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: November 11, 2012 ; Last revised: March 4, 2013

Suggested Citation

Urbina, Francisco J., A Critique of Proportionality (2012). American Journal of Jurisprudence, Vol. 57, 2012. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2173690

Contact Information

Francisco J. Urbina (Contact Author)
University of Oxford - Oriel College ( email )
Oxford, OX1 4EW
United Kingdom
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 732
Downloads: 198
Download Rank: 88,470
Footnotes:  96

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo6 in 0.312 seconds