Judges’ Panel: Proportionality in Constitutional Adjudication
- Susanne Baer, Justice, Constitutional Court of Germany
- Amine Benabdallah, Professor, Member of the Constitutional Council of Morocco
- William A. Fletcher, Judge, United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
- Francoise Tulkens, Former Judge and Vice-President of the European Court of Human Rights
Some constitutional scholars argue that modern constitutional review ultimately boils down to proportionality analysis.
This raises several key questions:
- Is all constitutional review ultimately submitted to the same standard, which means that proportionality should be viewed as a judicial common currency susceptible of being set from above?
- Does proportionality inevitably differ from one cultural setting to another, which would suggest that proportionality is necessarily constrained from below?
- Is there congruence or analogy between proportionality as used by transnational courts and national constitutional courts?
A panel of judges from different parts of the world who engage in constitutional review at both national and a transnational level will tackle these issues from the standpoint of judicial theory as well as from that of judicial practice in constitutional adjudication.