Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T07:39:44.925Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preface to the German Law Journal's Constitutional Reasoning Special Edition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Andreas Voßkuhle

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Other
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 14 , Issue 8: Special Issue - Constitutional Reasoning , 01 August 2013 , pp. 979 - 981
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 See Christensen, Ralph, Was heißt Gesetzesbindung?: Eine rechtslinguistische Untersuchung 64 (1989).Google Scholar

2 Cited by Fernando Muñoz, Not Only ‘Who Decides': The Rhetoric of Conflicts over Judicial Appointments, 14 German L.J. 1195 (2013).Google Scholar

3 See Kelemen, Katalin, Dissenting Opinions in Constitutional Courts, 14 German L.J. 1345 (2013).Google Scholar

4 See Jakab, András, Judicial Reasoning in Constitutional Courts: A European Perspective, 14 German L.J. 1215 (2013).Google Scholar

5 Andreas Voßkuhle, Was weiß Dogmatik?, in Was leistet und wie steuert die Dogmatik des Öffentlichen Rechts? 111–14 (Gregor Kirchhof, Stefan Magen & Karsten Schneider eds., 2012).Google Scholar

6 See Sartor, Giovanni, The Logic of Proportionality: Reasoning with Non-Numerical Magnitudes, 14 German L.J1419(2013)(examining its structure further); see also Niels Petersen, How to Compare the Length of Lines to the Weight of Stones: Balancing and the Resolution of Value Conflicts in Constitutional Law, 14 German L.J. 1387 (2013).Google Scholar

7 See Aharon Barak, Proportionality: Constitutional Rights and Their Limitations 181–210 (2012).Google Scholar

8 See Bellamy, Richard, Democracy as Public Law: The Case of Rights, 14 German L.J 1017 (2013).Google Scholar

9 See Petersen, Niels, How to Compare the Length of Lines to the Weight of Stones: Balancing and the Resolution of Value Conflicts in Constitutional Law, 14 German L.J. 1387 (2013).Google Scholar

10 See Lachmayer, Konrad, Constitutional Reasoning as Legitimacy of Constitutional Comparison, 14 German L.J. 1463 (2013); Christa Rautenbach & Lourens du Plessis, In the Name of Comparative Constitutional Jurisprudence: The Consideration of German Precedents by South African Constitutional Court Judges, 14 German L.J. 1539 (2013).Google Scholar

11 For example, to Hungary, South Africa, or Spain. See Jakab, supra note 4; Rautenbach & Plessis, supra note 10; Zoltán Szente, The Interpretive Practice of the Hungarian Constitutional Court—A Critical View, 14 German L.J. 1591 (2013).Google Scholar

12 See also Arshakyan, Mher, The Impact of Legal Systems on Constitutional Interpretation: A Comparative Analysis: The U.S. Supreme Court and the German Federal Constitutional Court, 14 German L.J. 1297 (2013).Google Scholar