American balancing and German proportionality: The historical origins
| Abstract | American and European constitutional systems have two similar doctrines: balancing and proportionality. Both resemble each other in important aspects and are often discussed in tandem. However, balancing has never attained the status of an established doctrine in American constitutional law in the same way that proportionality has in European constitutional law. Moreover, balancing has always been the subject of fierce criticism and is very much a controversial concept in American constitutional law. European proponents of proportionality are perplexed by this American resistance which is sometimes viewed as based on American isolationalism and unilateralism. In this article we suggest an original, and often overlooked, explanation to the difference between balancing and proportionality - the historical origins of the two concepts. We examine the ways in which proportionality developed in Germany and balancing in the United States and show that the origins of both concepts were very different. For instance, proportionality was originally developed in administrative law, and was only tangentially (if at all) related to private law, whereas balancing arose in private law and was only later extended to public law; proportionality was created as part of an attempt to protect individual rights, whereas balancing was created for the exact opposite purpose - to check overzealous protection of rights by the Supreme Court during the Lochner era. We suggest that these differences may go a long way in explaining current disparities in attitudes and current barriers to dialogue and convergence between these two concepts. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,672 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesDavis Brown (2011). Proportionality in Modern Just War Theory: A Tort-Based Approach. Journal of Military Ethics 10 (3):213-229.
Tyrone Kirchengast (2010). Proportionality in Sentencing and the Restorative Justice Paradigm: 'Just Deserts' for Victims and Defendants Alike? Criminal Law and Philosophy 4 (2):197-213.
E. Thomas Sullivan (2009). Proportionality Principles in American Law: Controlling Excessive Government Actions. Oxford University Press.
Suzanne Uniacke (2011). Proportionality and Self-Defense. Law and Philosophy 30 (3):253-272.
Aharon Barak (2010). Proportionality and Principled Balancing. Law and Ethics of Human Rights 4 (1).
Charles-Maxime Panaccio (2011). In Defence of Two-Step Balancing and Proportionality in Rights Adjudication. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 24 (1):109-128.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads15 ( #78,614 of 549,049 )Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #25,703 of 549,049 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
