Judicial Review and the Politics of Comparative Citations: Theory, Evidence & Methodological Challenges

Forthcoming in: Comparative Judicial Review Erin F. Delaney and Rosalind Dixon, eds. (Edward Elgar, 2018)

20 Pages Posted: 29 May 2017 Last revised: 31 Jul 2018

Ran Hirschl

University of Toronto

Date Written: May 28, 2017

Abstract

What explains where, when and how the judicial imagination travels in its search for comparative reference? Possible answers emanate from: (i) historical accounts of engagement with the constitutive laws of others that examine episodes of selective constitutional borrowing and reference; (ii) comparative public law scholarship that stresses the significance of various structural and disciplinary elements, most notably legal training, legal tradition and linguistic capacity, in elucidating patterns of transnational judicial dialogue; and (iii) from social science accounts that stress the significance of strategic and socio-political factors in explaining selective judicial engagement with the constitutive laws of others. In this chapter, I elucidate the main findings and assess the contribution of each of these approaches.

Keywords: comparative constitutional law; judicial review; comparative reference; comparative citations; constitutional borrowing; constitutional identity

Suggested Citation

Hirschl, Ran, Judicial Review and the Politics of Comparative Citations: Theory, Evidence & Methodological Challenges (May 28, 2017). Forthcoming in: Comparative Judicial Review Erin F. Delaney and Rosalind Dixon, eds. (Edward Elgar, 2018). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2975986

Ran Hirschl (Contact Author)

University of Toronto ( email )

78 Queen's Park
Toronto, Ontario M5S 2C5
Canada

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
154
rank
178,238
Abstract Views
529
PlumX