Elgar Monographs in Constitutional and Administrative Law series
Chapter 3: From principles to institutions
The central chapter of the book develops four lines of institutional arguments against the New Constitutionalism: the argument from equal participation; the epistemic argument; the public reason argument; and the mismatch argument. The book claims that both general epistemic considerations and the Liberal Principle of Legitimacy make diversity one of the most important requirements of institutional design when we are looking for an institution that specifies the meaning of abstract human rights. Although the proponents of constitutional review are right to point out that the normal political process has many blind spots, in consolidated democracies this consideration is not strong enough to outweigh the countervailing procedural and epistemic arguments. The strongest argument for judicial review, coined the insulation argument in the book, justifies only a limited and corrective role for courts in the specification of human rights.
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.
Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.
Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.