PROPORTIONALITY AND VARIABLE INTENSITY OF REVIEW

Julian Rivers

doi:10.1017/S0008197306007082

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

ARTICLES 29 and 30 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights contain a series of limitations to human rights. Article 29(2) states:

In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

Crossref Citations

This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.

Borowski, Martin 2007. Limiting Clauses: On the Continental European Tradition of Special Limiting Clauses and the General Limiting Clause of Art 52(1) Charter of Fundamental Richts of the European Union. Legisprudence, Vol. 1, Issue. 2, p. 197.

Bamforth, Nicholas 2007. Prohibited Grounds of Discrimination under EU Law and the European Convention on Human Rights: Problems of Contrast and Overlap. Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, Vol. 9, Issue. , p. 1.

Rivers, Julian 2007. The Church in an age of human rights. International journal for the Study of the Christian Church, Vol. 7, Issue. 1, p. 3.

Turner, Ian 2008. Judicial Review, Irrationality, and the Legitimacy of Merits-Review. Liverpool Law Review, Vol. 29, Issue. 3, p. 309.

Porat, Iddo 2009. Reasonableness and Law. Vol. 86, Issue. , p. 243.

Poole, Thomas 2009. THE REFORMATION OF ENGLISH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. The Cambridge Law Journal, Vol. 68, Issue. 1, p. 142.

Sweet, Alec Stone and Mathews, Jud 2009. Reasonableness and Law. Vol. 86, Issue. , p. 171.

Harker, Michael Peyer, Sebastian and Wright, Kathryn 2011. JUDICIAL SCRUTINY OF MERGER DECISIONS IN THE EU, UK AND GERMANY. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 60, Issue. 1, p. 93.

Groves, Matthew 2011. Federal Constitutional Influences on State Judicial Review. SSRN Electronic Journal,

Bjorge, Eirik and Andenas, Mads 2011. National Implementation of ECHR Rights: Kant’s Categorical Imperative and the Convention. SSRN Electronic Journal,

Cohen-Eliya, Moshe and Porat, Iddo 2011. Proportionality and the Culture of Justification. American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 59, Issue. 2, p. 463.

Andenas, Mads and Bjorge, Eirik 2011. National Implementation of ECHR Rights: Kant’s Categorical Imperative and the Convention. SSRN Electronic Journal,

Solanke, Iyiola 2012. The Advocate General: Assisting the CJEU of Article 13 TEU to Secure Trust and Democracy. Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, Vol. 14, Issue. , p. 697.

PERJU, VLAD 2012. Proportionality and freedom—An essay on method in constitutional law. Global Constitutionalism, Vol. 1, Issue. 2, p. 334.

Cowan, Dave and Hunter, Caroline 2012. ‘Yeah but, no but’ – Pinnock and Powell in the Supreme Court. The Modern Law Review, Vol. 75, Issue. 1, p. 78.

Reimer, Philipp 2013. “… und machet zu Jüngern alle Völker“ Von “universellen Verfassungsprinzipien“ und der Weltmission der Prinzipientheorie der Grundrechte. Der Staat, Vol. 52, Issue. 1, p. 27.

Dye, Valerie D. 2013. “Deference as respect” in WTO standard of review. Journal of International Trade Law and Policy, Vol. 12, Issue. 1, p. 23.

Samuels, Harriet 2013. Feminizing Human Rights Adjudication: Feminist Method and the Proportionality Principle. Feminist Legal Studies, Vol. 21, Issue. 1, p. 39.

Download full list

Article contents

PROPORTIONALITY AND VARIABLE INTENSITY OF REVIEW

Abstract

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests