...
【24h】

In this issue

机译:在这个问题上

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The issue opens with two theoretical papers, each employing a comparative methodology in the theorization of constitutional ideas and practices. Focusing on originalist approaches in the United States and Australia, Lael Weis illustrates how a comparative methodology can advance our debates on constitutional interpretation. Apart from offering an insightful analysis of originalism and its potential justification, Weis also shows how the lack of comparative sensibilities impedes the proper evaluation of the originalist position. Australian constitutional law is also the site for Scott Stephenson's study of the migration of the Canadian idea of constitutional dialogue. Stephenson traces the deliberate modification of this idea in Australia, and uses this experience to elaborate his theory of constitutional reengineering. These two papers are followed by a contribution by Monica Brito Vieira and Filipe Carreira da Silva, who explore the protection and entrenchment of social rights in Portugal from a comparative perspective.
机译:这个问题以两篇理论论文作为开篇,每篇论文在宪法思想和实践的理论化中都采用了比较方法。莱尔·魏斯(Lael Weis)着眼于美国和澳大利亚的原始主义方法,阐述了比较方法如何促进我们对宪法解释的辩论。除了提供对独创性及其潜在理由的深刻分析之外,Weis还展示了缺乏比较敏感性如何阻碍对独创性立场的正确评估。澳大利亚宪法也是斯科特·斯蒂芬森(Scott Stephenson)研究加拿大宪法对话观念的迁移的地点。史蒂芬森(Stephenson)追溯了澳大利亚对这一想法的蓄意修改,并利用这一经验阐述了他的宪法再造理论。这两篇论文之后是莫妮卡·布里托·维埃拉(Monica Brito Vieira)和菲利普·卡雷拉·达席尔瓦(Filipe Carreira da Silva)的贡献,他们从比较的角度探讨了葡萄牙社会权利的保护和确立。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号