Interpreting Constitutions

Describes the constitutions of six major federations and how they have been interpreted by their highest courts. This study compares the interpretive methods that have guided the courts, and explores the reasons for major differences between these methods, looking to the different social, historical, institutional and political circumstances.

The book is a success. The essays are largely coherent in both structure and vocabulary; the authors manage to insert distinct perspectives while keeping to their organizational discipline; and the essays support readers in generating ideas for new research directions. Although the book focuses on questions of constitutional interpretation, the comparative orientation and the scope of constitutional questions that each essay addresses will make it a valuable reference for political scientists and political theorists, not just lawyers. The book will prove especially useful to graduate students or researchers contemplating a shift in their primary research direction.

Auteur
Jeffrey Goldsworthy holds a Personal Chair at Monash University. His major interests are legal philosophy, and constitutional law, theory, and history. He has numerous publications in these fields, and is best known for his book "The Sovereignty of Parliament, History and Philosophy" (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1999), and many journal articles on constitutional interpretation.

Contenu

• 1: Introduction

• 2: Mark Tushnet: United States: Eclecticism In the Service of Pragmatism

• 3: Peter Hogg: Canada: From Privy Council to Supreme Court

• 4: Jeffrey Goldsworthy: Australia: Devotion to Legalism

• 5: Donald Kommers: Germany: Balancing Rights and Duties

• 6: S.P. Sathe: India: From Positivism to Structuralism

• 7: Heinz Klug: South Africa: From Constitutional Promise to Social Transformation

• 8: Conclusions