The Dynamics of Proportionality: Constitutional Courts and the Review of COVID-19 Regulations
The result's identifiers
Result code in IS VaVaI
<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216224%3A14220%2F24%3A00139889" target="_blank" >RIV/00216224:14220/24:00139889 - isvavai.cz</a>
Result on the web
<a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/german-law-journal/article/dynamics-of-proportionality-constitutional-courts-and-the-review-of-covid19-regulations/6F519F4528D94BD4A9CAACBE83A8678B" target="_blank" >https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/german-law-journal/article/dynamics-of-proportionality-constitutional-courts-and-the-review-of-covid19-regulations/6F519F4528D94BD4A9CAACBE83A8678B</a>
DOI - Digital Object Identifier
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.96" target="_blank" >10.1017/glj.2023.96</a>
Alternative languages
Result language
angličtina
Original language name
The Dynamics of Proportionality: Constitutional Courts and the Review of COVID-19 Regulations
Original language description
The COVID-19 pandemic has made it clear that even when using trusted legal tools, courts may run into challenging problems. Governments reacted to an unprecedented (at least in the context of post-WW2 era of fundamental rights) global crisis by adopting measures that drastically limited fundamental rights in order to protect the lives and health of many. Courts, of course, were entrusted with protecting fundamental rights against governmental overreach. The question was, how strict should the courts be when reviewing governmental acts. On the one hand, they could have relied on substantive proportionality assessment. This option, however was virtually ignored and most courts have opted for a deferential approach. This article analyzes both of these approaches, their strengths and weaknesses, but ultimately it argues that a third option - semiprocedural review - is the best way out of this judicial conundrum. Relying on comparative as well as theoretical arguments, it argues that semiprocedural review is the best way to deal with challenging empirical question - even under conditions of epistemological uncertainty.
Czech name
—
Czech description
—
Classification
Type
J<sub>imp</sub> - Article in a specialist periodical, which is included in the Web of Science database
CEP classification
—
OECD FORD branch
50501 - Law
Result continuities
Project
<a href="/en/project/VI04000096" target="_blank" >VI04000096: Freedom of Movement Restrictions: Technological Opportunities and Constitutional Limits</a><br>
Continuities
P - Projekt vyzkumu a vyvoje financovany z verejnych zdroju (s odkazem do CEP)
Others
Publication year
2024
Confidentiality
S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů
Data specific for result type
Name of the periodical
German Law Journal
ISSN
2071-8322
e-ISSN
—
Volume of the periodical
25
Issue of the periodical within the volume
3
Country of publishing house
GB - UNITED KINGDOM
Number of pages
21
Pages from-to
386-406
UT code for WoS article
001163104300001
EID of the result in the Scopus database
2-s2.0-85185476765