Conceptual Precision and Parliamentary Systems of Rights: Disambiguating “Dialogue”
- Autores: Emmett Macfarlane
- Localización: Review of constitutional studies = Revue d'études constitutionnelles, ISSN 1192-8034, Vol. 17, Nº. 2, 2013
- Idioma: inglés
- Enlaces
-
Resumen
The concept of "dialogue" has become an increasingly popular way to understand how judicial review operates in parliamentary systems of government with bills of rights. Dialogue is said to provide a middle ground between judicial supremacy and traditional parliamentary sovereignty by giving both courts and the elected branches ofgovernment a say in the resolution of policies that come into conflict with protected rights. his understanding of dialogue originares in Canada, and is often applied to the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia. Scholars invoking the concept have explored how particular structural elements in the bills of rights adopted in these countries serve as mechanisms fbr dialogue, but they often employ the term in many different, sometimes contradictory, ways. his article develops ftur typologies ojdialogue, and assesses the concept's utility for empirical assessment of how parliamentary systems of rights protection operate. Itfinds that a lack oJconceptual precision by scholars employing the term impairs its utility for both empirical and comparative analysis parliamentary rights review.
