Reasoning Rights: Comparative judicial engagement

Liora Lazarus (Editor), Christopher McCrudden (Editor), Nigel Bowles (Editor)

Research output: Book/ReportBook

Abstract

This edited book is about comparative reasoning in human rights cases, exploring the questions: How is it that notionally universal norms are reasoned by courts in such dramatically different ways? What is the shape of this reasoning? What techniques are common across the transnational jurisprudence? What techniques are diverse? With contributions by a team of world-leading human rights scholars, the book moves beyond simply addressing the institutional questions concerning courts and human rights, which too often dominate discussions of this kind. Instead, it seeks a deeper examination of the similarities and divergence in the content of reasons being developed by different courts when addressing comparable human rights questions. These differences, while partly influenced by institutional issues, cannot be attributable to them alone. The book explores the diverse and rich underlying spectrum of human rights reasoning, as a distinctive and particular form of legal reasoning, evident in the case studies across the selected jurisdictions. It is a fascinating study for all those interested in human rights law and legal reasoning.
Original languageEnglish
Place of PublicationOxford
PublisherHart Publishing
Number of pages432
ISBN (Electronic)9781782252344
ISBN (Print)9781849462525
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2014

Keywords

  • Judicial reasoning, human rights, comparative law

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Law

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Reasoning Rights: Comparative judicial engagement'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this