David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Law and Ethics of Human Rights 4 (2):231-242 (2010)
Across a broad range of subjects, there is now wide agreement that the principle of proportionality governs the extent to which a provocation may lawfully be countered by what might otherwise be an unlawful response. That is the central role assigned to proportionality in international law and it is deeply rooted in the cultural history of societies. However, if the core institutions of a legal system are too weak to be relied upon to take remedial action against wrongdoers, then they must at least be authorized to license appropriate action by the wronged party and to insure that its response remains within prescribed parameters. The practice described in this essay demonstrates that a high degree of accord is emerging across a broad range of issues to the appropriate standards by which the proportionality of countermeasures can be assessed. The practice of various institutions authorized to render second opinions as to the compliance with those standards is gradually narrowing the range of indeterminacy inherent in the term proportionality. Some of this case law has been disappointingly episodic. The well-crafted second opinion, through its precision, its invocation of precedent, and its careful weighing of the probity of the facts presented to it, deepens and narrows the jurisprudential stream while strengthening its embankments. If applied in practice through second opinions rendered by legitimate institutions, proportionality is an example of an indeterminate principle becoming gradually empowered to provide persuasive answers to difficult questions and, thereby, case by case, building the objective determinacy of the principle
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Matthias Klatt (2012). The Constitutional Structure of Proportionality. Oxford University Press.
Davis Brown (2011). Proportionality in Modern Just War Theory: A Tort-Based Approach. Journal of Military Ethics 10 (3):213-229.
Suzanne Uniacke (2011). Proportionality and Self-Defense. Law and Philosophy 30 (3):253-272.
E. Thomas Sullivan (2009). Proportionality Principles in American Law: Controlling Excessive Government Actions. Oxford University Press.
Moshe Cohen-Eliya & Iddo Porat, American Balancing and German Proportionality: The Historical Origins.
Georg Nolte (2010). Thin or Thick? The Principle of Proportionality and International Humanitarian Law. Law and Ethics of Human Rights 4 (2):245-255.
M. Kamminga, Final Report on the Impact of International Human Rights Law on General International Law.
Tyrone Kirchengast (2010). Proportionality in Sentencing and the Restorative Justice Paradigm: 'Just Deserts' for Victims and Defendants Alike? [REVIEW] Criminal Law and Philosophy 4 (2):197-213.
Herman van Harten, Proportionality in Decentralised Action: The Dutch Court Experience in Free Movement of Services and Freedom of Establishment Cases.
Jack L. Goldsmith (2007). The Limits of International Law. Oxford University Press.
Samantha Besson & John Tasioulas (eds.) (2010). The Philosophy of International Law. Oxford University Press.
Tetsuya Toyoda (2011). Theory and Politics of the Law of Nations: Political Bias in International Law Discourse of Seven German Court Councilors in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. M. Nijhoff Pub..
Charles-Maxime Panaccio (2010). Review of G.C.N. Webber, The Negotiable Constitution: On the Limitation of Rights (Cambridge University Press, 2009). [REVIEW] International Journal of Constitutional Law 8 (4):988-995.
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.
Added to index2011-07-17
Total downloads23 ( #116,841 of 1,699,833 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #105,649 of 1,699,833 )
How can I increase my downloads?