Vergleichende Verfassungsrechtsprechung : Praxis, Viabilität und Begründung rechtsvergleichender Argumentation durch Verfassungsgerichte / von Stefan Martini.

Berlin : Duncker & Humblot, [2018]

712 pages : illustrations ; 24 cm.

Originally presented as the author's thesis (doctoral)--Universität Kiel, 2016.

"Stefan Martini examines how and why constitutional courts argue comparatively in their decision-making grounds, and provides justifications for this globally observable practice. In detail, the first six decades of the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court are analyzed in terms of both quantitative and qualitative analysis. By contrast, the active comparative law of the common law-dominated South African Constitutional Court is held. The openness of constitutional law, the "attitude" of the concrete constitutional order to external legal contexts and the exogenous effects of a transnational field of legal communication serve as an explanation for the status of comparative law in the respective constitutional jurisprudence. Under these conditions, comparative argumentation legitimately fits into traditional searches of the right for rationality, consensus, and authority."--Translation from Lehmanns Media as accessed on Google, July 6, 2018.

German

August 02, 2018

Veröffentlichungen des Walther-Schücking-Instituts für internationales Recht an der Universität Kiel, Band 200.

Includes bibliographical references (pages 636-706) and index.