Law and Ethics of Human Rights 4 (1):1-16 (2010)

This essay focuses on proportionality stricto sensu as a consequential test of balancing. The basic balancing rule establishes a general criterion for deciding between the marginal benefit to the public good and the marginal limit to human rights. Based on the Israeli constitutional jurisprudence, this essay supports the adoption of a principled balancing approach that translates the basic balancing rule into a series of principled balancing tests, taking into account the importance of the rights and the type of restriction. This approach provides better guidance to the balancer , restricts wide discretion in balancing, and makes the act of balancing more transparent, more structured, and more foreseeable. The advantages of proportionality stricto sensu with its three levels of abstraction are several. It stresses the need to always look for a justification of a limit on human rights; it structures the mind of the balancer; it is transparent; it creates a proper dialog between the political brunches and the judiciary, and it adds to the objectivity of judicial discretion. Proportionality stricto sensu however has it critics: some claim that it attempts to balance incommensurable items; others that balancing is irrational. The answer to the critics is that it is a common base for comparison, namely the social marginal importance and that the balancing rules—basic, principled, concrete—supply a rational basis for balancing. A democracy must entrust the judiciary—the unelected independent judiciary—to be the final decision-maker—subject to constitutional amendments—about proper ends that cannot be achieved because they are not proportionality stricto sensu
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.2202/1938-2545.1041
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 57,077
External links

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.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Chang’s Parity: An Alternative Way to Challenge Balancing.Cristóbal Caviedes - 2017 - American Journal of Jurisprudence 62 (2):165-195.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

In Defence of Two-Step Balancing and Proportionality in Rights Adjudication.Charles-Maxime Panaccio - 2011 - Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 24 (1):109-128.
Proportionality and Self-Defense.Suzanne Uniacke - 2011 - Law and Philosophy 30 (3):253-272.
Balancing Principles in Beauchamp and Childress.Tom Tomlinson - 1998 - The Paideia Archive: Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 4:191-196.
Specifying, Balancing, and Interpreting Bioethical Principles.Henry S. Richardson - 2000 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 25 (3):285 – 307.
The Mechanics of Self-Knowledge.Brie Gertler - 2000 - Philosophical Topics 28 (2):125-46.
Proportionality, Causation, and Exclusion.Thomas D. Bontly - 2005 - Philosophia 32 (1-4):331-348.
Some Correlates of Principled Moral Thinking in Young Adults.Colin McGeorge - 1976 - Journal of Moral Education 5 (3):265-273.


Added to PP index

Total views
196 ( #47,962 of 2,410,890 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
9 ( #75,301 of 2,410,890 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes