|Abstract||Most bills of rights allow for the restriction of rights in the interests of the public. But how should courts decide when the public interest should prevail? This article draws on philosophical work on practical reasoning to argue against the popular view that courts should use a balancing test which weighs the consequences of protecting the right against the consequences of restricting it. It argues that there are good reasons to 'overprotect' rights: judges, in their reasoning, should assign more weight to rights and less weight to the public interest than they would on an application of the balancing model.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Jona Razzaque, Linking Human Rights, Development and Environment: Experiences From Litigation in South Asia.
András Miklós (2009). Public Health and the Rights of States. Public Health Ethics 2 (2).
Leif Wenar (2005). The Nature of Rights. Philosophy and Public Affairs 33 (3):223–252.
Carl E. Schneider (1992). Cruzan and the Constitutionalization of American Life. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 17 (6):589-604.
Pamela Beth Harris (2012). The Politics of Judicial Public Reason: Secular Interests and Religious Rights. Philosophia 40 (2):271-283.
Andrew Kernohan (1995). Rights Against Polluters. Environmental Ethics 17 (3):245-257.
Rowan Cruft (2004). Rights: Beyond Interest Theory and Will Theory? Law and Philosophy 23 (4):347 - 397.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads22 ( #56,255 of 549,198 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #15,251 of 549,198 )
How can I increase my downloads?