Comparative Constitutional Reasoning

To what extent is the language of judicial opinions responsive to the political and social context in which constitutional courts operate? Courts are reason-giving institutions, with argumentation playing a central role in constitutional adjudication. However, a cursory look at just a handful of constitutional systems suggests important differences in the practices of constitutional judges, whether in matters of form, style, or language. Focusing on independently-verified leading cases globally, a combination of qualitative and quantitative analysis offers the most comprehensive and systematic account of constitutional reasoning to date. This analysis is supported by the examination of eighteen legal systems around the world including the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice. Universally common aspects of constitutional reasoning are identified in this book, and contributors also examine whether common law countries differ to civil law countries in this respect.

András Jakab is the Director of the Institute for Legal Studies at the Centre for Social Sciences, Hungarian Academy of Sciences. He is also Professor of Constitutional and European Law at Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Budapest.

Arthur Dyevre is Associate Professor of Empirical Jurisprudence at the Faculty of Law, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium. He works in the fields of legal theory, judicial behaviour, European integration, comparative law and comparative politics.

Giulio Itzcovich is Associate Professor of Philosophy of Law in the Department of Legal Science, Università degli Studi di Brescia, Italy. He is also a permanent fellow of the Tarello Institute for Legal Philosophy at Università degli Studi di Genova.