Abstract
AbstractThe author makes two claims in this paper. First, there appears to be an increase in indications of inconsistency (“IoIs”) across the common law world. Second, this increase is a normatively concerning turn in judicial practice. IoIs are judicial statements which, either explicitly or by implication, indicate that primary legislation is incompatible with certain protected human rights or civil liberties. They are related to, but stop short of, the formal remedies known as declarations of inconsistency (“DoIs”).
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Cited by
34 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
1. Conclusion;Deference in Human Rights Adjudication;2024-07-25
2. Choice of Device III: Practicability;Deference in Human Rights Adjudication;2024-07-25
3. Choice of Device II: Strength of Reasons;Deference in Human Rights Adjudication;2024-07-25
4. Choice of Device I: Type of Reasons;Deference in Human Rights Adjudication;2024-07-25
5. Devices for Deference;Deference in Human Rights Adjudication;2024-07-25