en pl
en pl

Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne studia nad prawem

Show issue
Year 2019 
Volume 11 
Issue 2

Proportionality as the Tool for Adjudicating Conflicts of Fundamental Rights – Criticism and Retort

Magdalena Michalska
Jagiellonian University

2019 11 (2) Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne studia nad prawem

DOI 10.7206/kp.2080-1084.309

Abstract

Even though the proportionality principle is well-established for judicial review in matters pertaining to human rights in modern constitutional law in numerous jurisdictions, it has recently become subject to a growing tide of criticism. The article aims to describe and critically analyze the main arguments raised by the opponents of using proportionality as the tool for adjudicating conflicts of fundamental rights. After briefly describing the typical and the most common structure of the proportionality test as it is used in constitutional law, the author would present – and then dismiss – the three most significant allegations towards the proportionality analysis, namely: the problem of incommensurability, the alleged proportionality’s moral neutrality as well as the scope of judicial discretion that is claimed to be too wide according to some of proportionality’s opponents.

References

  1. Alexy R., A theory of constitutional rights, Oxford 2002. [Google Scholar]
  2. Banaszak B., Prawo konstytucyjne, Warszawa 2015. [Google Scholar]
  3. Barak A., Proportionality. Constitutional Rights and their Limitations, Cambridge–New York 2012. [Google Scholar]
  4. Beatty D.M., The Ultimate Rule of Law, Oxford 2004. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bendor A.L., Sela T., How proportional is proportionality?, “International Journal of Constitutional Law” 2015, 13. [Google Scholar]
  6. Cohen-Eliya M., Porat I., American balancing and German proportionality: The historical origins, “International Journal of Constitutional Law” 2010, 2. [Google Scholar]
  7. Finnis J., Natural Law and Natural Rights, Oxford 1980. [Google Scholar]
  8. Frąckowiak-Adamska A., Zasada proporcjonalności jako gwarancja swobód rynku wewnętrznego Wspólnoty Europejskiej, Warszawa 2009. [Google Scholar]
  9. Harbo T.-I., The Function of Proportionality Analysis in European Law, Leiden–Boston 2015. [Google Scholar]
  10. Klatt M., Meister M., The Constitutional Structure of Proportionality, Oxford–London 2012. [Google Scholar]
  11. Łętowska E., Wprowadzenie do problematyki proporcjonalności, [in:] P. Szymaniec (ed.), Zasada proporcjonalności a ochrona praw podstawowych w państwach Europy, Wałbrzych 2015. [Google Scholar]
  12. Luban D., Incommensurable Values, Rational Choice, and Moral Absolutes, “Cleveland State Law Review” 1990, 38. [Google Scholar]
  13. Möller K., Proportionality: Challenging the critics, “International Journal of Constitutional Law” 2012, 10. [Google Scholar]
  14. Neto J.A., Borrowing Justification for Proportionality. On the Influence of the Principles Theory in Brazil, Cham 2018. [Google Scholar]
  15. Silva V.A., da, Comparing the Incommensurable: Constitutional Principles, Balancing and Rational Decision, “Oxford Journal of Legal Studies” 2011, 2. [Google Scholar]
  16. Stępkowski A., Zasada proporcjonalności w europejskiej kulturze prawnej: sądowa kontrola władzy dyskrecjonalnej w nowoczesnej Europie, Warszawa 2010. [Google Scholar]
  17. Szydło M., Komentarz do art. 31, [in:] M. Safjan, L. Bosek (eds.), Konstytucja RP. Tom I. Komentarz. Art. 1–86, Warszawa 2016. [Google Scholar]
  18. Tsakyrakis S., Proportionality: An assault on human rights?, “International Journal of Constitutional Law” 2009, 7. [Google Scholar]
  19. Tushnet M., Advanced Introduction to Comparative Constitutional Law, Cheltenham–Northampton 2014. [Google Scholar]
  20. Urbina F.J., A Critique of Proportionality and Balancing, Cambridge–New York–Melbourne––Delhi–Singapore 2017. [Google Scholar]
  21. Webber G.C.N., The Negotiable Constitution. On the Limitation of Rights, Cambridge–New York 2009. [Google Scholar]
  22. Wojtyczek K., Zasada proporcjonalności, [in:] B. Banaszak, A. Preisner (eds.), Prawa i wolności obywatelskie w Konstytucji RP, Warszawa 2002. [Google Scholar]
  23. Zakolska J., Zasada proporcjonalności w orzecznictwie Trybunału Konstytucyjnego, Warszawa 2008. [Google Scholar]
  24. Alexy R., A theory of constitutional rights, Oxford 2002. [Google Scholar]
  25. Banaszak B., Prawo konstytucyjne, Warszawa 2015. [Google Scholar]
  26. Barak A., Proportionality. Constitutional Rights and their Limitations, Cambridge–New York 2012. [Google Scholar]
  27. Beatty D.M., The Ultimate Rule of Law, Oxford 2004. [Google Scholar]
  28. Bendor A.L., Sela T., How proportional is proportionality?, “International Journal of Constitutional Law” 2015, 13. [Google Scholar]
  29. Cohen-Eliya M., Porat I., American balancing and German proportionality: The historical origins, “International Journal of Constitutional Law” 2010, 2. [Google Scholar]
  30. Finnis J., Natural Law and Natural Rights, Oxford 1980. [Google Scholar]
  31. Frąckowiak-Adamska A., Zasada proporcjonalności jako gwarancja swobód rynku wewnętrznego Wspólnoty Europejskiej, Warszawa 2009. [Google Scholar]
  32. Harbo T.-I., The Function of Proportionality Analysis in European Law, Leiden–Boston 2015. [Google Scholar]
  33. Klatt M., Meister M., The Constitutional Structure of Proportionality, Oxford–London 2012. [Google Scholar]
  34. Łętowska E., Wprowadzenie do problematyki proporcjonalności, [in:] P. Szymaniec (ed.), Zasada proporcjonalności a ochrona praw podstawowych w państwach Europy, Wałbrzych 2015. [Google Scholar]
  35. Luban D., Incommensurable Values, Rational Choice, and Moral Absolutes, “Cleveland State Law Review” 1990, 38. [Google Scholar]
  36. Möller K., Proportionality: Challenging the critics, “International Journal of Constitutional Law” 2012, 10. [Google Scholar]
  37. Neto J.A., Borrowing Justification for Proportionality. On the Influence of the Principles Theory in Brazil, Cham 2018. [Google Scholar]
  38. Silva V.A., da, Comparing the Incommensurable: Constitutional Principles, Balancing and Rational Decision, “Oxford Journal of Legal Studies” 2011, 2. [Google Scholar]
  39. Stępkowski A., Zasada proporcjonalności w europejskiej kulturze prawnej: sądowa kontrola władzy dyskrecjonalnej w nowoczesnej Europie, Warszawa 2010. [Google Scholar]
  40. Szydło M., Komentarz do art. 31, [in:] M. Safjan, L. Bosek (eds.), Konstytucja RP. Tom I. Komentarz. Art. 1–86, Warszawa 2016. [Google Scholar]
  41. Tsakyrakis S., Proportionality: An assault on human rights?, “International Journal of Constitutional Law” 2009, 7. [Google Scholar]
  42. Tushnet M., Advanced Introduction to Comparative Constitutional Law, Cheltenham–Northampton 2014. [Google Scholar]
  43. Urbina F.J., A Critique of Proportionality and Balancing, Cambridge–New York–Melbourne––Delhi–Singapore 2017. [Google Scholar]
  44. Webber G.C.N., The Negotiable Constitution. On the Limitation of Rights, Cambridge–New York 2009. [Google Scholar]
  45. Wojtyczek K., Zasada proporcjonalności, [in:] B. Banaszak, A. Preisner (eds.), Prawa i wolności obywatelskie w Konstytucji RP, Warszawa 2002. [Google Scholar]
  46. Zakolska J., Zasada proporcjonalności w orzecznictwie Trybunału Konstytucyjnego, Warszawa 2008. [Google Scholar]

Full metadata record

Cite this record

APA style

Michalska, M. . (2019). Proportionality as the Tool for Adjudicating Conflicts of Fundamental Rights – Criticism and Retort. Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia Nad Prawem, 11(2), 253-269. https://doi.org/10.7206/kp.2080-1084.309 (Original work published 2019)

MLA style

Michalska, M. . “Proportionality As The Tool For Adjudicating Conflicts Of Fundamental Rights – Criticism And Retort”. 2019. Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia Nad Prawem, vol. 11, no. 2, 2019, pp. 253-269.

Chicago style

Michalska, Magdalena . “Proportionality As The Tool For Adjudicating Conflicts Of Fundamental Rights – Criticism And Retort”. Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne Studia Nad Prawem, Krytyka Prawa. Niezależne studia nad prawem, 11, no. 2 (2019): 253-269. doi:10.7206/kp.2080-1084.309.