File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Conference Paper: Proportionality and Invariable Baseline Intensity of Review

TitleProportionality and Invariable Baseline Intensity of Review
Authors
KeywordsProportionality
Intensity of review
Judicial deference
Human Rights Act 1998
Issue Date2013
PublisherSociety of Legal Scholars.
Citation
The Society of Legal Scholars (SLS) Annual Conference, Bristol, UK., 11-14 September 2012. In Legal Studies, 2013, v. 33 n. 1, p. 1-21 How to Cite?
AbstractOne of the most contested issues in UK public law is how to calibrate the appropriate intensity of proportionality review in human rights adjudication. Here the challenge lies in formulating a theory of intensity of review that can both comply with the constitutional framework introduced by the Human Rights Act 1998 (‘HRA’) and accommodate courts’ varying levels of competence in different areas of litigation. This article attempts to sketch such a theory in two steps. First, it argues that to fulfil the constitutional expectations brought about by the HRA, a minimum rigour of proportionality review should be observed. This baseline consists of requiring the government to demonstrate to the courts by means of cogent and sufficient evidence that a rights-limiting measure satisfies the distinct stages of the proportionality test. Secondly, this article highlights the ways in which compliance with this baseline can nonetheless accommodate the courts’ varying levels of competence in different adjudicative contexts. In particular, courts can vary the intensity of review once the baseline level of review is reached and adjust the nature of the evidence required from the government.
DescriptionSLS Annual Conference Best Paper Prize 2012
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/196072
ISSN
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.328

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorChan, CSW-
dc.date.accessioned2014-03-28T03:22:13Z-
dc.date.available2014-03-28T03:22:13Z-
dc.date.issued2013-
dc.identifier.citationThe Society of Legal Scholars (SLS) Annual Conference, Bristol, UK., 11-14 September 2012. In Legal Studies, 2013, v. 33 n. 1, p. 1-21-
dc.identifier.issn0261-3875-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/196072-
dc.descriptionSLS Annual Conference Best Paper Prize 2012-
dc.description.abstractOne of the most contested issues in UK public law is how to calibrate the appropriate intensity of proportionality review in human rights adjudication. Here the challenge lies in formulating a theory of intensity of review that can both comply with the constitutional framework introduced by the Human Rights Act 1998 (‘HRA’) and accommodate courts’ varying levels of competence in different areas of litigation. This article attempts to sketch such a theory in two steps. First, it argues that to fulfil the constitutional expectations brought about by the HRA, a minimum rigour of proportionality review should be observed. This baseline consists of requiring the government to demonstrate to the courts by means of cogent and sufficient evidence that a rights-limiting measure satisfies the distinct stages of the proportionality test. Secondly, this article highlights the ways in which compliance with this baseline can nonetheless accommodate the courts’ varying levels of competence in different adjudicative contexts. In particular, courts can vary the intensity of review once the baseline level of review is reached and adjust the nature of the evidence required from the government.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherSociety of Legal Scholars.-
dc.relation.ispartofLegal Studies-
dc.rightsCreative Commons: Attribution 3.0 Hong Kong License-
dc.subjectProportionality-
dc.subjectIntensity of review-
dc.subjectJudicial deference-
dc.subjectHuman Rights Act 1998-
dc.titleProportionality and Invariable Baseline Intensity of Reviewen_US
dc.typeConference_Paperen_US
dc.identifier.emailChan, CSW: corachan@hku.hk-
dc.description.naturepreprint-
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/lest.12007-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84873606201-
dc.identifier.hkuros220402-
dc.identifier.volume33-
dc.identifier.issue1-
dc.identifier.spage1-
dc.identifier.epage21-
dc.publisher.placeGreat Britain-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats