Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T21:15:51.465Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kant, cosmopolitanism and systems of constitutional justice in Europe and beyond

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 December 2020

ALEC STONE SWEET Open the ORCID record for ALEC STONE SWEET [Opens in a new window]  and
CLARE RYAN
ALEC STONE SWEET*
Affiliation:
National University of Singapore, Faculty of Law, 469G Bukit Timah Rd, Singapore259776
CLARE RYAN*
Affiliation:
Louisiana State University Paul M. Hebert Law Center, 1 E Campus Dr, Baton Rouge, LA70803, United States
*
Email: alec.sweet@yale.edu
Email: clareryan@lsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In A Cosmopolitan Legal Order: Kant, Constitutional Justice, and the ECHR, we sought to demonstrate the power of Kantian theory to explain – or at least meaningfully illuminate – (1) the defining characteristics of modern, rights-based constitutionalism; (2) the evolving law, politics and constitutional architecture of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR); and (3) the emergence of a global, cosmopolitan commons, featuring inter-judicial dialogue at its core. This article responds to contributors to the special symposium on the book. In Part I, we defend our account of a Kantian-congruent, domestic system of constitutional justice. Part II reflects on the ECHR as an instantiation of a cosmopolitan legal order, and on the European Court’s case law – particularly its enforcement of the proportionality principle. In Part III, we assess the evidence in support of a broader ‘constitutionalization’ of international human rights law.

Keywords

constitutional lawcosmopolitanismjudicial reviewKantrights
Type
Symposium/Special Issue Manuscript
Information
Global Constitutionalism , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , November 2020 , pp. 562 - 580
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barak, Aharon. 2012. Proportionality: Constitutional Rights and Their Limitations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjorge, Eirik. 2015. Domestic Application of the ECHR: Courts as Faithful Trustees. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Garrett Wallace. 2006. ‘Kantian Cosmopolitan Law and the Idea of a Cosmopolitan Constitution’. History of Political Thought 27:661–84.Google Scholar
Brown, Garrett Wallace. 2009. Grounding Cosmopolitanism: From Kant to the Idea of a Cosmopolitan Constitution. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Corradetti, Claudio. 2016. ‘Kant’s Legacy and the Idea of a Transitional Jus Cosmopoliticum.’ Ratio Juris 29:105–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corradetti, Claudio. 2017a. ‘Thinking with Kant “Beyond” Kant: Actualizing Sovereignty and Citizenship in the Transnational Sphere’. Danish Yearbook of Philosophy 50(1). Available at: <https://brill.com/view/journals/dyp/50/1/article-p59_59.xml>.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corradetti, Claudio. 2017b. ‘Constructivism in Cosmopolitan Law: Kant’s Right to Visit’. Journal of Global Constitutionalism 6(3):412–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doyle, Michael. 1986. ‘Liberalism and World Politics’. American Political Science Review 80(4):1151–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardbaum, Stephen. 2008. ‘Human Rights as International Constitutional Rights’. European Journal of International Law 19:749–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardbaum, Stephen. 2014. ‘Proportionality and Democratic Constitutionalism’. In Proportionality and the Rule of Law: Rights, Justification, Reasoning, edited by Huscroft, Grant, Miller, Bradley and Webber, Grégoire, 259–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsburg, Tom and Huq, Azziz. 2019. How to Save a Constitutional Democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IDEA (Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance). 2017. ‘Threats from Within: Democracy’s Resilience to Backsliding.’ Available at: <https://www.idea.int/gsod/files/IDEA-GSOD-2017-CHAPTER-3-EN.pdf>..>Google Scholar
Issacharoff, Samuel. 2015. Fragile Democracies: Contested Power in the Era of Constitutional Courts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumm, Mattias. 2009. ‘The Cosmopolitan Turn in Constitutionalism: On the Relationship Between Constitutionalism in and Beyond the State.’ In Ruling the World? Constitutionalism, International Law and Global Governance, edited by Dunhoff, Jeffrey and Trachtman, Joel, 258–324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumm, Mattias. 2010. ‘The Idea of Socratic Contestation and the Right to Justification: The Point of Rights-Based Proportionality Review’. Law & Ethics of Human Rights 4(1):141–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, Chien-Chih. 2018. ‘Autocracy, Democracy, and Juristocracy: The Wax and Wane of Judicial Power in the Four Asian Tigers’. Georgetown Journal of International Law 48:1063–1144.Google Scholar
Ripstein, Arthur. 2009. Force and Freedom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabel, Charles, and Gerstenberg, Oliver. 2010. ‘Constitutionalising an Overlapping Consensus: The ECJ and the Emergence of a Coordinate Constitutional Order.’ European Law Journal 16: 511–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadurski, Wojciech. 2018. ‘How Democracy Dies (in Poland): A Case Study of Anti-Constitutional Populist Backsliding’. Sydney Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 18/01. Available at <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3103491##>.CrossRef.>Google Scholar
Stone Sweet, Alec, . 2012. ‘Constitutional Courts’, in Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law, edited by Rosenfeld, Michel and Sajó, András, 816–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stone Sweet, Alec and Keller, Helen. 2008. ‘Assessing the Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems’. In A Europe of Rights: The Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems, edited by Keller, Helen and Sweet, Alec Stone, 677–710. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Stone Sweet, Alec and Mathews, Jud. 2019. Proportionality Balancing and Constitutional Governance: A Comparative and Global Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone Sweet, Alec and Palmer, Eric. 2017. ‘A Kantian System of Constitutional Justice: Rights, Trusteeship, Balancing’. Global Constitutionalism 6(3):377–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone Sweet, Alec, and Ryan, Clare. 2018. A Cosmopolitan Legal Order: Kant, Constitutional Justice, and the European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Bogdandy, Armin and Venzke, Ingo. 2012. ‘In whose name? An investigation of international courts’ public authority and its democratic justification’. European Journal of International Law 23: 7-41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. 2004. ‘Some Models of Dialogues Between Judges and Legislators’. Supreme Court Review 23:7–47.Google Scholar
Weinrib, Jacob. 2014. ‘The Modern Constitutional State: A Defence’. Queen’s Law Journal 40:165–211.Google Scholar
Weinrib, Jacob. 2016. Dimensions of Dignity: The Theory and Practice of Modern Constitutional Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Howard. 2015. ‘Kantian Underpinnings for a Theory of Multirights’. In Kantian Theory and Human Rights, edited by Føllesdal, Andreas and Maliks, Reidar, 8–26. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar