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.


Published Mar. 21, 2013 12:23 PM - Last modified July 23, 2015 10:16 AM