000			03260cam a2200361 i 4500
001			22459990
005			20230907182437.0
008			220310t20232023enk b 001 0 eng
010			_a 2022934445
020			_a9780192865779 _q(hardback)
040			_aDLC _beng _cDLC _erda _dDLC
042			_apcc
043			_au-at---
050	0	0	_aJQ4031 _b.D59 2023
082			_a342.085
100	1		_aDixon, Rosalind, _eauthor.
245	1	0	_aResponsive judicial review : _bdemocracy and dysfunction in the modern age / _cRosalind Dixon, Professor of Law and Director of the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law, UNSW Sydney.
250			_aFirst edition.
264		1	_aOxford ; _aNew York : _bOxford University Press, _c2023.
264		4	_c© 2023.
300			_axi, 295 pages ; _c24 cm.
336			_atext _btxt _2rdacontent
337			_aunmediated _bn _2rdamedia
338			_avolume _bnc _2rdacarrier
365			_bRs. 8832.00
490	0		_aOxford comparative constitutionalism
504			_aIncludes bibliographical references and index.
520			_a"Democratic dysfunction can arise in both 'at risk' and well-functioning constitutional systems. It can threaten a system's responsiveness to both minority rights claims and majoritarian constitutional understandings. Responsive Judicial Review aims to counter this dysfunction. Rosalind Dixon argues that courts should adopt a sufficiently 'dialogic' approach to countering relevant democratic blockages and look for ways to increase the actual and perceived legitimacy of their decisions-through careful choices about their framing, and the timing and selection of cases. By orienting judicial choices about constitutional construction toward promoting democratic responsiveness, or toward countering forms of democratic monopoly, blind spots, and burdens of inertia, judicial review helps safeguard a constitutional system's responsiveness to democratic majority understandings. The idea of 'responsive' judicial review encourages courts to engage with their own distinct institutional position, and potential limits on their own capacity and legitimacy. Dixon further explores the ways that this translates into the embracing of a 'weakened' approach to judicial finality, compared to the traditional US-model of judicial supremacy, as well as a nuanced approach to the making of judicial implications, a 'calibrated' approach to judicial scrutiny or judgments about proportionality, and an embrace of 'weak - strong' rather than wholly weak or strong judicial remedies. Not all courts will be equally well-placed to engage in review of this kind, or successful at doing so. For responsive judicial review to succeed, it must be sensitive to context-specific limitations of this kind. Nevertheless, the idea of responsive judicial review is explicitly normative and aspirational: it aims to provide a blueprint for how courts should think about the practice of judicial review as they strive to promote and protect democratic constitutional values"-- _cProvided by publisher.
650		0	_aDemocracy _zAustralia.
906			_a7 _bcbc _corignew _d2 _eepcn _f20 _gy-gencatlg
942			_2ddc _cBK
999			_c212022 _d212022