Oregon Review of International Law : Volume 25 (2024)

Permanent URI for this collection

https://hdl.handle.net/1794/29451

Browse

Browsing Oregon Review of International Law : Volume 25 (2024) by Subject "Constitutional law"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Chief Justice Dixon on Judicial Integrity: Lessons for Judges when Interpreting Constitutions
    (University of Oregon School of Law, 2024-05-01) Thompson, Keith
    "In this Article, I suggest that Chief Justice Dixon considered that judicial virtue did not allow any judge to follow his own lights when precedent, established custom, or constitutional convention dictated a contrary result. In later Parts of the Article, I relate Chief Justice Dixon’s famous 1952 statement about “strict and complete legalism” to both judicial integrity and freedom of religion at common law. I suggest that Chief Justice Dixon’s primary concern when he became Chief Justice was not to talk about judicial method but rather to signal judicial virtue to all Australian judges, present and future. Not only does Chief Justice Dixon provide lessons for Australian judges but for judges everywhere grappling with these issues, including those in the United States."
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    The Fourth Branch, Separation of Powers, and Transformative Constitutionalism
    (University of Oregon School of Law, 2024-05-01) Modi, Neil
    Comparative constitutional law, generally, and the Global South, in particular, have witnessed two distinct and emerging movements in the past decade. The first is a proliferation of the “fourth branch” of the State. These institutions refer to those constitutionally entrenched bodies that do not fall neatly within the tripartite structure of separation of powers. They are tailor made and range from electoral to human rights commissions, tasked with securing specific constitutional norms. The second movement is “transformative constitutionalism.” Narrowly construed, transformative constitutionalism is but another interpretive tool that select constitutional courts employ. More broadly, and crucially, however, it has come to represent a constitutional vision. This vision demands a state commitment to broadscale social transformation, with substantive equality at the heart of this movement, where the constitutional machinery and its functionaries, comprising the legislature, judiciary, and executive, actively pursue a transformational “mandate.”
©2024 University of Oregon School of Law