FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W362346403> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W362346403 abstract "ness but rather to the fact that review may be initiated (never mind by whom) already after the law entered into operation. And this kind of uncertainty can well be minimized by a simple technique of establishing a legal deadline by which a new law can be challenged. If no such techniques are actually being used it may be for the reason that the uncertainty resulting from abstract, ex post review has never been perceived as a major problem. But even conceding, for the sake of argument, that abstract and centralized review provides for a higher level of legal certainty than the concrete and diffuse one, does it follow, as Reitz claims, that abstract review is based on a degree of paternalism, while the US model of concrete review reflects strong anti-paternalistic stance of the American constitutional system? In Reitz’s words: “The kind of citizen required by a system limited to concrete review is a ‘tough’ citizen, one who is willing to run significant risks deliberately in order to vindicate his rights, not one who waits for the paternalistic arms of the state to take care of him”. We may accept arguendo that the general hostility to paternalism is higher in the American political culture than in Europe. It remains to be seen whether this higher American antipaternalism can indeed explain reliance on concrete review only and, a contrario, whether a relatively higher degree of acceptance of paternalism in Europe explains the European preference towards abstract review. Taking the argument one step at a time, it may be true that paternalism (government knowing what is good for its citizens better than citizens do themselves) is inconsistent with a high degree of legal uncertainty: a paternalist government would like to signal clearly to the citizens its expectations about their behavior. But the link between paternalism and high legal certainty (which yields, as we have seen, abstract but also in particular an ex ante or limited-in-time review) is 114 In contrast, such a deadline regarding a challenge initiated in the course of concrete review (but not constitutional complaint) that is, occasioned by a concrete litigation, would be clearly pernicious. A person has no control when she can be brought to court under a particular law which she can then claim unconstitutionally violates her rights! 115 As one example of such a time limit one might mention the rule in Poland until 1997 that abstract review of statutes applied only to statutes enacted no earlier than 5 years before the date of the Constitutional Tribunal’s decision (Article 24 of the Law of 29 April 1985 on Constitutional Tribunal). This limit has been abandoned by the new statute on Constitutional Tribunal, adopted 1 August 1997. One may hypothesize that one reason why this provision was dropped had to do with its very low practical relevance: in a system of predominantlyreview of statutes applied only to statutes enacted no earlier than 5 years before the date of the Constitutional Tribunal’s decision (Article 24 of the Law of 29 April 1985 on Constitutional Tribunal). This limit has been abandoned by the new statute on Constitutional Tribunal, adopted 1 August 1997. One may hypothesize that one reason why this provision was dropped had to do with its very low practical relevance: in a system of predominantly abstract review, where the challenges to laws are most likely to be launched by the defeated parliamentary minority, it is highly unlikely that challenges will be made to laws which have been on the books for a very long toime. 116 Reitz, supra note 113 at pp. 80-81. 117 Id., p. 81.review, where the challenges to laws are most likely to be launched by the defeated parliamentary minority, it is highly unlikely that challenges will be made to laws which have been on the books for a very long toime. 116 Reitz, supra note 113 at pp. 80-81. 117 Id., p. 81." @default.
• W362346403 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W362346403 creator A5008278445 @default.
• W362346403 date "2001-01-01" @default.
• W362346403 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W362346403 title "Postcommunist Constitutional Courts in Search of Political Legitimacy" @default.
• W362346403 hasPublicationYear "2001" @default.
• W362346403 type Work @default.
• W362346403 sameAs 362346403 @default.
• W362346403 citedByCount "3" @default.
• W362346403 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W362346403 hasAuthorship W362346403A5008278445 @default.
• W362346403 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W362346403 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W362346403 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W362346403 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W362346403 hasConcept C175444787 @default.
• W362346403 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W362346403 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W362346403 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W362346403 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W362346403 hasConcept C2679804 @default.
• W362346403 hasConcept C2781249084 @default.
• W362346403 hasConcept C46295352 @default.
• W362346403 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W362346403 hasConcept C7493553 @default.
• W362346403 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W362346403 hasConcept C98184364 @default.
• W362346403 hasConceptScore W362346403C111472728 @default.
• W362346403 hasConceptScore W362346403C138885662 @default.
• W362346403 hasConceptScore W362346403C144024400 @default.
• W362346403 hasConceptScore W362346403C162324750 @default.
• W362346403 hasConceptScore W362346403C175444787 @default.
• W362346403 hasConceptScore W362346403C17744445 @default.
• W362346403 hasConceptScore W362346403C185592680 @default.
• W362346403 hasConceptScore W362346403C190253527 @default.
• W362346403 hasConceptScore W362346403C199539241 @default.
• W362346403 hasConceptScore W362346403C2679804 @default.
• W362346403 hasConceptScore W362346403C2781249084 @default.
• W362346403 hasConceptScore W362346403C46295352 @default.
• W362346403 hasConceptScore W362346403C55493867 @default.
• W362346403 hasConceptScore W362346403C7493553 @default.
• W362346403 hasConceptScore W362346403C94625758 @default.
• W362346403 hasConceptScore W362346403C98184364 @default.
• W362346403 hasLocation W3623464031 @default.
• W362346403 hasOpenAccess W362346403 @default.
• W362346403 hasPrimaryLocation W3623464031 @default.
• W362346403 hasRelatedWork W1503577368 @default.
• W362346403 hasRelatedWork W1534401165 @default.
• W362346403 hasRelatedWork W1552268399 @default.
• W362346403 hasRelatedWork W2036840919 @default.
• W362346403 hasRelatedWork W2087470736 @default.
• W362346403 hasRelatedWork W2121764043 @default.
• W362346403 hasRelatedWork W2179647680 @default.
• W362346403 hasRelatedWork W2267915506 @default.
• W362346403 hasRelatedWork W2300363847 @default.
• W362346403 hasRelatedWork W233716482 @default.
• W362346403 hasRelatedWork W2596250783 @default.
• W362346403 hasRelatedWork W2769116861 @default.
• W362346403 hasRelatedWork W3122369197 @default.
• W362346403 hasRelatedWork W3123750909 @default.
• W362346403 hasRelatedWork W3125095420 @default.
• W362346403 hasRelatedWork W3195454921 @default.
• W362346403 hasRelatedWork W336609543 @default.
• W362346403 hasRelatedWork W816411053 @default.
• W362346403 hasRelatedWork W2167748097 @default.
• W362346403 hasRelatedWork W3124110134 @default.
• W362346403 isParatext "false" @default.
• W362346403 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W362346403 magId "362346403" @default.
• W362346403 workType "article" @default.