東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

The partnership model of the Canadia...

Kahana, Tsvi.

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

The partnership model of the Canadian notwithstanding mechanism: Failure and hope.

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	The partnership model of the Canadian notwithstanding mechanism: Failure and hope./
Author:	Kahana, Tsvi.
Description:	304 p.
Notes:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 61-06, Section: A, page: 2442.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International61-06A.
Subject:	Law. -
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=NQ49918
ISBN:	0612499189

The partnership model of the Canadian notwithstanding mechanism: Failure and hope.
Kahana, Tsvi.

The partnership model of the Canadian notwithstanding mechanism: Failure and hope. - 304 p.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 61-06, Section: A, page: 2442.

Thesis (S.J.D.)--University of Toronto (Canada), 2000.

This work inquires into the idea of the notwithstanding clause contained in s. 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . It sets out the theoretical perspectives for the discussion of the notwithstanding mechanism, and examines the theory and practice of this device in Canada.

ISBN: 0612499189Subjects--Topical Terms:

600858
Law.

The partnership model of the Canadian notwithstanding mechanism: Failure and hope.
LDR:04178nmm 2200313 4500 001 1839498
005 20050624104410.5
008 130614s2000 eng d
020 $a 0612499189
035 $a (UnM)AAINQ49918
035 $a AAINQ49918
040 $a UnM $c UnM
100 1 $a Kahana, Tsvi. $3 1562478
245 1 4 $a The partnership model of the Canadian notwithstanding mechanism: Failure and hope.
300 $a 304 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 61-06, Section: A, page: 2442.
500 $a Adviser: Lorraine Weinrib.
502 $a Thesis (S.J.D.)--University of Toronto (Canada), 2000.
520 $a This work inquires into the idea of the notwithstanding clause contained in s. 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . It sets out the theoretical perspectives for the discussion of the notwithstanding mechanism, and examines the theory and practice of this device in Canada.
520 $a The dissertation discusses the shift in Canadian constitutional theory from seeing the Charter with the notwithstanding clause as a reflection of a compromised constitutionalism based on the remnants of legislative supremacy to the view of it as creating a new system of judicial review with legislative finality, which I call the New Institutional Paradigm (NIP). According to the NIP, rather than authorizing the legislature to override constitutional rights, the notwithstanding clause creates a gateway for legislative participation in the interpretation of the Constitution in rights issues.
520 $a The NIP creates a system of judicial review with legislative finality. But why should the legislature have the final say on constitutional issues? I discuss two answers to this question. One is that legislative finality is needed in order to check judicial errors. This answer, however, creates a theoretical inconsistency between judicial review and legislative finality. Judicial review is based on the idea that courts have a greater ability and incentive to guard the Constitution than do legislators. Legislative finality, on the other hand, rests on the opposite assumption and conceives of legislatures as being superior to courts in their ability to guard the Constitution such that they should supervise the courts' work.
520 $a The other justification for legislative finality is the idea of a partnership. According to this notion, legislatures and courts---within the Canadian constitutional setting do not check and balance each other, but rather perform different functions under the Constitution. The role of courts is to deliberate on the meaning of the Constitution. The role of legislatures is to make a final decision with regard to this meaning. This approach is coherent as it unifies judicial review and legislative finality. Judicial review is based on the court's superior ability to deliberate about the meaning of the Constitution while the legislature maintains the power to reject the court's deliberation through the use of the notwithstanding clause. I further develop my own model of partnership between courts and legislatures and set out the manner in which legislatures should use the notwithstanding clause once they have decided to invoke it.
520 $a In light of my suggested partnership model, I examine the practice of the notwithstanding clause in Canada. I demonstrate that Canadian legislatures have, generally speaking, refrained from using the mechanism. However, on the two occasions where a Canadian legislature did invoke the notwithstanding clause in response to a judicial decision. it did not act in a partnership oriented way. In addition, I examine how two uses, and one attempted use, of the notwithstanding mechanism have provoked harsh public reactions in Canada. These negative public responses reflect the fact that accountability might make it politically impossible to abuse the notwithstanding clause.
590 $a School code: 0779.
650 4 $a Law. $3 600858
690 $a 0398
710 2 0 $a University of Toronto (Canada). $3 1017674
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 61-06A.
790 1 0 $a Weinrib, Lorraine, $e advisor
790 $a 0779
791 $a S.J.D.
792 $a 2000
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=NQ49918