'International meaning': Comity in fundamental rights adjudication

International Journal of Refugee Studies 13:280-292 (2002)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In fundamental rights adjudication, should judges defer to the judgment of other decision makers? How can they defer, without betraying the respect that judges ought to accord those rights? How can they refuse to defer, without betraying the respect that judges ought to accord to other decision makers? I argue that only principles of comity justify deference, and their reach is limited. Comity never forbids the judges to take and to act upon a different view of fundamental rights from that of another decision maker. I elaborate this view by reference to the decision of the House of Lords in Adan and Aitseguer [2001] 1 All ER 593

Author's Profile

Timothy Endicott
Oxford University

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
202 (#64,940)

6 months
43 (#78,886)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?