Constitutional Dialogue and the Rule of Law

Matthew Palmer

Resumo


ABSTRACT: In this article, Judge Palmer outlines a descriptive conception of constitutional dialogue. It enriches itself by focusing on what is truly constitutional and considering how high and in what languages the branches of government engage in dialogue. As a normative issue, he suggests that it is important for the rule of law that the powers of government speak in different languages and have systemically different perspectives. Otherwise, it would not be the law that governs; would be the "ruling" culture

KEYWORDS: Constitution. Public Powers. Rule of law. Dialogue.


Texto completo:

PDF (English)

Referências


Alexander Bickel, The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2nd ed., 1962)

Peter Hogg and Allison Bushell, “The Charter Dialogue between the Courts and Legislatures (Or Perhaps the Charter of Rights Isn’t Such a Bad Thing After All)” (1997) 35 Osgoode Hall L J 75; Peter W Hogg, Allison A Bushell Thornton and Wade K Wright, “Charter Dialogue Revisited — or ‘Much Ado about Metaphors’” (2007)

Mark Tushnet, Weak Courts, Strong Rights: Judicial Review and Social Welfare Rights in Comparative Constitutional Law (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008); Stephen Gardbaum, The New Commonwealth Model of Constitutionalism: Theory and Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013).

Philip Joseph, “Parliament, the Courts, and the Collaborative Enterprise” (2004) 15 Kings College L J 321; Aileen Kavanagh, “Judge as Partner” Paper Presented to the Constitutional Dialogue Conference (University of Hong Kong, 9 December 2016).

Christine Bateup, “The Dialogic Promise: Assessing the Normative Potential of Theories of Constitutional Dialogue” (2006) 71 Brooklyn Law Review 109.

Aileen Kavanagh, “The Lure and Limits of Dialogue” (2016) 66 University of Toronto Law Journal

Matthew SR Palmer, “New Zealand Constitutional Culture” (2007) 22 NZULR 565

Matthew SR Palmer, “What Is New Zealand’s Constitution and Who Interprets it? Constitutional Realism and the Importance of Public Office-holders” (2006) 17 Public Law Review 133; Palmer (2007) (n 7 above). I added two more statutes, and drew on these elements to offer a brief summary narrative of New Zealand’s constitution, in Matthew SR Palmer, The Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand’s Law and Constitution (Wellington: Victoria University Press, 2008) pp 236–238.

KN Llewellyn, “The Constitution as an Institution” (1934) 34 Columbia Law Review

Neil Duxbury, Patterns of American Jurisprudence (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995)

Akhil Reed Amar, America’s Unwritten Constitution: The Precedents and Principles We Live By (New York: Basic Books, 2012); Laurence H Tribe, The Invisible Constitution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).

Po Jen Yap, “Statutory Rights and De Facto Constitutional Supremacy in Hong Kong” Paper Presented to the Constitutional Dialogue Conference (University of Hong Kong, 9 December 2016); Po Jen Yap, Constitutional Dialogue in Common Law Asia (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015)

New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1987] 1 NZLR 641 (CA).

Simpson v Attorney-General (Baigent’s Case) [1994] 3 NZLR 667 (CA).

Law Commission, Crown Liability and Judicial Immunity: A Response to Baigent’s Case and Harvey v Derrick (NZLC R37, 1997).

Taunoa v Attorney-General (2004) 7 HRNZ 379 (HC) (on liability); Taunoa v Attorney-General (2004) 8 HRNZ 53 (HC) (on relief).

Taunoa v Attorney-General [2007] NZSC 70, [2008] 1 NZLR 429.

Attorney-General v Chapman [2011] NZSC 110, [2012] 1 NZLR 462.

Moonen v Film and Literature Board of Review [2000] 2 NZLR 9 (CA), [19]–[20].

R v Poumako [2000] 2 NZLR 695 (CA).

Hansen v R [2007] NZSC 7, [2007] 3 NZLR 1, [8], [24] (Elias CJ), [254] and [259] (McGrath J) and [267] (Anderson J). See Claudia Geiringer, “On a Road to Nowhere: Implied Declarations of Inconsistency and the

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act” (2009) 40 VUWLR 613, 646.

Taylor v Attorney-General [2015] NZHC 1706.

Ngati Apa v Attorney-General [2003] 3 NZLR 643 (CA).

The 2011 Act includes in its preamble one of only four references to the rule of law in New Zealand legislation — as having been transgressed by the 2004 legislation.

Privileges Committee “Question of privilege concerning the defamation action Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh” [2011–2014] III AJHR I.17A.

Buchanan v Jennings [2004] UKPC 36, [2005] 2 All ER 273 (PC).

Couch v Attorney-General [2010] NZSC 27, [2010] 3 NZLR 149.

Hamed v R [2011] NZSC 101, [2012] 2 NZLR 305




DOI: https://doi.org/10.47096/rdpc.v1i2.74

Apontamentos

  • Não há apontamentos.


Direitos autorais 2020 Revista de Direito Público Contemporâneo

Licença Creative Commons

A revista está licenciada quanto aos direitos autorais com uma Licença Creative Commons - Atribuição-NãoComercial-SemDerivações 4.0 Internacional.

Indexada em | Indexed by | Indizada en:

Google Acadêmico

HTML tutorial
Periódicos/CAPES

HTML tutorial
 
 
Directory of Open Acess Journals


HTML tutorial


Diadorim - Diretório de Políticas Editoriais das Revistas Científicas Brasileiras

Livre - Revistas de Livre Acesso

International Standard Serial Number International Center

Sumários

ResearchBib - Academic Resource Index