Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMbazira, Christopher
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-07T06:03:08Z
dc.date.available2019-10-07T06:03:08Z
dc.date.issued2009
dc.identifier.citationMbazira, C. (2009). 'The role of transboundary dialogue : a response to Stephen Ellmann'. Constitutional Court Review, 2(1): 145 - 163en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10566/4966
dc.description.abstractThe novelty of Ellmann's paper derives primarily from the fact that it moves beyond the separation of powers and counter-majoritarian based critiques and analyses that have dominated academic discourse about South African constitutional law. For instance, in the second edition of the Constitutional law of South Africa, Woolman and Botha outline the multi-part structure of the fundamental rights analysis. The authors describe interpretation as characterised by a two-fold process: determining the meaning or the scope of a fundamental right followed by a determination of whether the right has been infringed. In most instances, a finding that the right has been limited leads to a third stage: limitations analysis. Under section 36, courts are, quite 'controversially', given the power to decide whether a democratically conceived law's infringement of a fundamental right indeed violates the Constitution or whether, in fact, the infringement of a right can be justified.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherConstitutional Court Reviewen_US
dc.subjectTransboundary dialogueen_US
dc.subjectStephan Ellmannen_US
dc.subjectSeparation of powersen_US
dc.subjectCourtsen_US
dc.titleThe role of transboundary dialogue : a response to Stephen Ellmannen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record