Abstract
AbstractThis article takes a contextual approach to analyzing judicial engagement with the doctrine of unconstitutional constitutional amendments. It argues that in assessing judicial reception of the basic structure doctrine, and the content of the constitutional identity that such a doctrine seeks to preserve, a normative universalist or even functionalist approach is not sufficient. Instead, such a doctrine should be justified and understood contextually. It is necessary to contextualize constitutional identity in order to give it a robust character, rather than assuming a set of characteristics most often associated with liberal democratic constitutionalism and without understanding the political, social, and economic conditions in which the constitution operates. This article thus uses the example of Malaysia and how the courts have engaged with the basic structure doctrine to show how a contextual approach could have greater explanatory effect, including on why certain issues are more strongly contested in some countries than in others.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Reference45 articles.
1. The Common Law Principle of Legality in the Age of Rights;Meagher;Melbourne University Law Review,2011
2. The Normativity of the Principle of Legality;Lim;Melbourne University Law Review,2013
3. The Principle of Legality in Administrative Law: Internationalisation as Constitutionalisation
4. Constitutions, Religion and Politics in Asia
5. Judicial and Political Decision-making: The Uncertain Boundary
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献