Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Conflicts of Rights in the European UnionA Theory of Supranational Adjudication$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Aida Torres Pérez

Print publication date: 2009

Print ISBN-13: 9780199568710

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: September 2009

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199568710.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2021. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 23 January 2021

Comparative Constitutional Reasoning: Recasting its Justification and Operation

Comparative Constitutional Reasoning: Recasting its Justification and Operation

(p.141) 6 Comparative Constitutional Reasoning: Recasting its Justification and Operation
Conflicts of Rights in the European Union

Aida Torres Pérez

Oxford University Press

This chapter analyzes the implications of judicial dialogue for the mode of judicial reasoning in interpreting fundamental rights. In particular, it explores the comparative method and judicial self-restraint as mechanisms contributing to ECJ's authority-building. These mechanisms have been highly contested in the literature. First, the chapter articulates a normative justification of the comparative method for giving meaning to EU fundamental rights. In addition, it expands on how the ECJ should operationalize this method, eschewing lowest and highest standard approaches. The comparative method should be aimed at better understanding the values informing the meanings attributed to fundamental rights across the states. This inter-state comparison would help to strengthen common understandings, while fostering an in-depth appraisal of pervasive particularities. Thereafter, ECJ's deference to state courts allowing for diversity in rights interpretation are explored.

Keywords:   comparative constitutional reasoning, rights interpretation, common constitutional traditions, standards of protection, synthetic outcomes, deference, judicial self-restraint, diversity

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .