Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
The History and Growth of Judicial Review, Volume 1The G-20 Common Law Countries and Israel$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Steven Gow Calabresi

Print publication date: 2021

Print ISBN-13: 9780190075774

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2021

DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190075774.001.0001

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: 31 July 2021

Conclusion The American and Westminster Models

Conclusion The American and Westminster Models

Chapter:
(p.391) Conclusion The American and Westminster Models
Source:
The History and Growth of Judicial Review, Volume 1
Author(s):

Steven Gow Calabresi

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/oso/9780190075774.003.0012

This concluding chapter identifies the four major causes of the growth and origin of judicial review in the G-20 common law countries and in Israel. First, the need for a federalism umpire, and occasionally a separation of powers umpire, played a major role in the development of judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation in the United States, in Canada, in Australia, in India, and most recently in the United Kingdom. Second, there is a rights from wrongs phenomenon at work in the growth of judicial review in the United States, after the Civil War; in Canada, with the 1982 adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; in India, after the Indira Gandhi State of Emergency led to a massive trampling on human rights; in Israel, after the Holocaust; in South Africa, after racist apartheid misrule; and in the United Kingdom, after that country accumulated an embarrassing record before the European Court of Human Rights prior to 1998. This proves that judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation often occurs in response to a deprivation of human rights. Third, the seven common law countries all borrowed a lot from one another, and from civil law countries, in writing their constitutions. Fourth, and finally, the common law countries all create multiple democratic institutions or political parties, which renders any political attempt to strike back at the Supreme Court impossible to maintain.

Keywords:   judicial review, G-20 countries, Israel, federalism umpire, separation of powers, constitutionality of legislation, human rights, common law countries, constitutions

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 .