Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 9
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    DE VISSER, Maartje 2016. We All Stand Together: The Role of the Association of Asian Constitutional Courts and Equivalent Institutions in Promoting Constitutionalism. Asian Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 3, Issue. 01, p. 105.


    Banfield, A. and Flynn, G. 2015. Activism or Democracy? Judicial Review of Prerogative Powers and Executive Action. Parliamentary Affairs, Vol. 68, Issue. 1, p. 135.


    Kerby, Matthew and Banfield, Andrew C. 2014. The determinants of voluntary judicial resignation in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, Vol. 52, Issue. 3, p. 335.


    Kelly, James B. 2011. Judicial and political review as limited insurance: the functioning of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in ‘hard’ cases. Commonwealth & Comparative Politics, Vol. 49, Issue. 3, p. 295.


    Choudhry, Sujit 2010. After the Rights Revolution: Bills of Rights in the Postconflict State. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Vol. 6, Issue. 1, p. 301.


    Bellamy, Richard 2008. Introduction: Should Europe Adopt the American Way of Law … and Has it Done so? European Political Science and the Law. European Political Science, Vol. 7, Issue. 1, p. 4.


    O’Cinneide, Colm 2007. Controlling the ‘Gorgon’ of state power in the state of exception: a reply to Professor Tushnet. International Journal of Law in Context, Vol. 3, Issue. 04,


    Poole, Thomas 2007. Tilting at Windmills? Truth and Illusion in ?The Political Constitution?. Modern Law Review, Vol. 70, Issue. 2, p. 250.


    Hiebert, Janet L. 2006. Parliamentary Bills of Rights: An Alternative Model?. Modern Law Review, Vol. 69, Issue. 1, p. 7.


    ×

Interpreting a Bill of Rights: The Importance of Legislative Rights Review

  • JANET L. HIEBERT (a1)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S000712340500013X
  • Published online: 01 April 2005
Abstract

This article contests the widely held view that an effective bill of rights requires judicial interpretation of rights to prevail over political judgement. Most bills of rights reflect classical liberal assumptions that premise freedom and liberty on the absence of state intervention. Yet they govern modern welfare states that presume and require substantial state involvement, seen to various degrees as facilitating rather than restricting the conditions for robust and equal citizenship. Judges cannot provide answers that are so definitive or persuasive to questions about whether social policy is reasonable in terms of human rights that they rule out other reasonable judgements. Although these concerns are often used to justify rejecting a bill of rights, this article takes a different position. It argues that a political community can benefit from exposure to judicial opinions on whether legislation is consistent with rights, but should also encourage and expect parliament to engage in legislative rights review. The article discusses how three parliamentary systems have attempted to infuse more concern for rights in their processes of decision making, and concludes with suggestions on how legislative rights review can be strengthened.

Copyright
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

British Journal of Political Science
  • ISSN: 0007-1234
  • EISSN: 1469-2112
  • URL: /core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×