Abstract
This article explores a novel cross-national phenomenon: the emergence of a new judicial review model that merges procedural judicial review with substantive judicial review. While this model is not yet fully defined, it has already spurred much controversy. The article explicates this emerging model, which it terms 'semi procedural review', and provides a theoretical exploration of both its justifications and its objectionable aspects. It concludes by evaluating semi procedural review's overall justifiability and suggesting guiding principles for a more legitimate model of semi procedural review. The article pursues these goals through the unique perspective of juxtaposing semi procedural review with 'pure procedural judicial review' and 'pure substantive judicial review'.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 271-300 |
| Number of pages | 30 |
| Journal | Legisprudence |
| Volume | 6 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Dec 2012 |
Bibliographical note
reviewed in Alberto Alemanno, The Emergence of the Evidence-based Judicial Reflex: A Response to Bar-Siman-Tov's Semiprocedural Review, 1 THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF LEGISLATION 327 (2013); and in Mark Kende, Can "Semi-Procedural Review" Help Solve the Problems of Constitutional Theory?, JOTWELL (2013), at http://conlaw.jotwell.com/can-semi-procedural-review-help-solve-the-problems-of-constitutional-theory/)Keywords
- Due process of lawmaking
- Judicial review
- Legislative process
- Procedural review
- Proportionality
- Semi-procedural review
- Substantive review