Comparative Constitutional Justice. Dieser Artikel ist nicht verfügbar.Comparative Constitutional Justice

Comparative Constitutional Justice adopts an innovative approach to constitutional justice. From a methodological perspective, it assumes that it is impossible to apply an absolute criterion of classification, which depends on the purposes comparative scholars aim to achieve when delivering their own taxonomies. A broad definition of constitutional justice is adopted, which revolves around the following taxonomy: 1) the legality of norms, 2) the conformity of actors’ behaviours with the distribution of sovereign powers and 3) the compliance with international covenants on human rights. This tripartite classification complements a further criterion based on the graduation in the intensity of this review. This indeed ranges from a minimum scrutiny limited to legislation (‘nomocratic review’) to a maximum scrutiny encompassing all state activities (‘pantocratic review’). The proposed classification will provide readers with a critical toolbox when it comes to examining the pluralism which characterises the systems of constitutional adjudication around the world.

Matteo Nicolini, PhD (2005), is Associate Professor of Public Comparative Law (Verona University, Italy). He is Visiting Lecturer, Newcastle University Law School (UK); External Partner, Centre for the Study of Law in Theory and Practice, Liverpool John Moores University (UK); Senior Researcher, Institute of Comparative Federalism, Eurac Research (Italy).

Silvia Bagni holds a PhD in Constitutional Law, University of Bologna (2005); Master in Bioethics, UPRA, Roma (2013). She is Researcher of Comparative Public Law, University of Bologna, since 2010, co-founder of the “Centro Studi sull’America Latina”, University of Bologna, 2013. Expert for the Harmony with Nature Program, United Nations.