LEGAL REASONABLENESS AND THE NEED FOR A LINGUISTIC APPROACH IN COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Main Article Content

Sara PENNICINO

Abstract

The paper focuses on the concept of reasonableness in several countries, in particular, comparing common and civil law systems. More specifically, it refers to the use of this word in the discourse of the judiciary and especially in the context of constitutional law. In the latter context reasonableness plays a crucial role in conveying values and thus construing “different” constitutionalisms; in fact it enhances the dynamics of the constitutional framework, while leaving the Constitution unaltered. Up to now, constitutional scholarship has devoted attention to the issue of reasonableness as a tool of adjudication (i.e. by including it in the wider framework of scrutiny techniques, such as strict scrutiny versus proportionality). On the contrary, the underlying hypothesis of this paper is that a solid linguistic approach will enhance the understanding of the role reasonableness plays as the quest for minima moralia in constitutional law.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
PENNICINO, S. (2017). LEGAL REASONABLENESS AND THE NEED FOR A LINGUISTIC APPROACH IN COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. Comparative Legilinguistics, 2, 23-38. https://doi.org/10.14746/cl.2010.2.02
Section
Articles

References

  1. Ajani, Gianmaria. 2003. Navigatori e giuristi. A proposito del trapianto di nozioni vaghe. In Io comparo, tu compari, egli compara: cosa, come, perchè?, ed. Valentina Bertorello, 3-19. Milano: Giuffré.
  2. Bradley, Anthony. 2007. The Sovereignty of Parliament - Form or Substance? In The Changing Constitution, ed. Jeffrey Jowell and Dawn Oliver, 26–61. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  3. Choudhry, Sujit, The Migration in Comparative Constitutional Law. 2006. In The Migration of Constitutional Ideas, ed. Sujit Choudhry, 1–36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  4. Cohn, Ernest J., 1968. Manual of German Law. Vol. I. London: The British Institute of International and Comparative Law.
  5. Danneman, Gerhard. 1993. An Introduction to German Civil and Commercial Law, London: The British Institute of International and Comparative Law.
  6. Frosini, Justin O. and Lucio Pegoraro. 2008. Constitutional Courts in Latin America: a testing ground for new parameters of classification? Journal of Comparative Law 3: 39–63.
  7. Frosini, Justin O., Spasič, Ivana. 2006. Ombudsman u Srbiji – Neophodnost ili iluzija? In Pravda na tlu Europe. Zakonski principi u proširenoj Europi, ed. Justin O. Frosini, Michele A. Lupoi, Michele Marchesiello, 335–344. Sarajevo: Magistrat
  8. Sarajevo.
  9. Frosini, Justin Orlando. Constitutional Justice. In Introduction to Italian Public Law, ed. Giuseppe F. Ferrari, 183-210. Milano: Giuffrè.
  10. Frosini, Justin Orlando. 2008. Forms of state and forms of government. In Introduction to Italian Public Law, ed. Giuseppe F. Ferrari, 31-56. Milano: Giuffrè.
  11. Galgano, Francesco, 2002. Il Negozio Giuridico, Milano: Giuffré.
  12. Gambaro, Antonio. 2004. A proposito del plurilinguismo legislativo europeo. Riv. trim. di dir. e proc. civile, 2004: 287 ff.
  13. Garcia Belaunde, Domingo, Carlos Hakinsson Nieto, José F. Palomino Manchego, 2002. The Influence of Europe and the United States in Latin American constitutionalism. Constitutional safeguards and presidentialism. Bologna: Bonomo.
  14. Gerotto, Sergio, 2004, Giurisprudenza costituzionale in Svizzera nel biennio 2002-2003, in Giurisprudenza costituzionale, 5: 3651– 3680.
  15. Grande, Elisabetta. 2006. Comparative Law in Italy. In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law, ed. Mathias Reimann and Reinhard Zimmermann, 107–130. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  16. Grosswald Curran, Vivian. 2006. Comparative Law and Language. In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law, ed. Mathias Reimann and Reinhard Zimmermann, 675–708. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  17. Harding, Andrew and Peter Leyland, 2007. Comparative Law in a Constitutional Context. In Comparative Law a Handbook, ed. David Nelken and Esin Örücü, 313–338. Oxford: Hart.
  18. Leyland, Peter and Terry Woods, 2002. Administrative Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  19. Örücü, Esin. 2007. Developing Comparative Law. In Comparative Law a Handbook, ed. David Nelken and Esin Örücü, 43–66. Oxford: Hart.
  20. Pozzo, Barbara. 2005. Ordinary Language and legal language. Milano: Giuffrè.
  21. R. Pound, Roscoe, 1923. The Theory of Judicial Decision I. The Materials of Judicial Decision, Harvard Law Review 36: 641–662.
  22. Sacco, Rodolfo. 1986. Les problèmes de traduction juridique. In Rapport Nationaux Italiens au XII Congrès International de Droit Comparé, Sidney.
  23. Wade, Henry W.R., and Christopher F. Forsyth. 2004. Administrative Law, 9° ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  24. List of cases:
  25. UK Courts
  26. Rooke's Case (1598) Co Rep 99b
  27. Keighley's Case (1609) 10 Co. Rep. 139a.
  28. Estwick v. City of London (1647) Style 42.
  29. Leader v. Moxon (1773) 2 W. Bl. 924.
  30. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury
  31. Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223.
  32. Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (1985) AC 374.
  33. R. v. Secretary of state for the Environment ex p. Nottinghamshire CC (1986) AC 240
  34. R. v. Home Secretary ex p. Brind (1991) 1 AC 696.
  35. R. (Jackson) v. Attorney- General [2005] UKHL 56.
  36. U.S. Courts
  37. Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113 (1877).
  38. Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905).
  39. United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. (1938).
  40. French Courts
  41. Conseil d'État 15 février 1961 Lagrange : Rec. p. 121.
  42. Italian Courts
  43. Con. St. sed. plen., n. 3/1993
  44. Corte cost. sent. n. 5 del 1980
  45. Corte cost. sent. n. 61 del 1957
  46. ECtHR
  47. Scordino c. Italia (1) – Grande Camera, sentenza 29 marzo 2006 (ricorso n. 36813/97)1.