Rights trumped? Balancing in constitutional adjudication
Journal Article
2004
Permanent link to this Item
Authors
Journal Title
Acta Juridica
Link to Journal
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Juta Law
Publisher
University of Cape Town
Department
Faculty
License
Series
Abstract
Many modern constitutional charters of fundamental rights authorize the limitation of the rights they entrench. The very abstract terms in which constitutional rights are usually formulated make collisions among them, and between different individuals' entitlements under a single right, inevitable. Naturally, this requires determination of the limits of rival rights and of the entitlements they grant to individuals. It also seems to render legislative and administrative determination of these rights unobjectionable, provided that this is, as these constitutions require, policed by independent courts - there are typically many different ways in which clashing rights and interests might be reconciled in particular circumstances, and it seems appropriate that in democracies the choice of means should be left to an elected legislature and the government over which it exercises ultimate control, while the courts ensure that the choices so made remain within the broad framework of the charter of rights.
Description
Reference:
Du Bois, F. (2004). Rights trumped? Balancing in constitutional adjudication. Acta Juridica: The Practice of Integrity: Reflections on Ronald Dworkin and South African Law, p-155.