Judicial Bricolage

The book represents a unique contribution to comparative legal studies by presenting the results of empirical research on the use of foreign precedents in constitutional interpretation in 31 jurisdictions worldwide. It expands and updates the previous successful book The Use of Foreign Precedents by Constitutional Judges , edited by Tania Groppi and Marie-Claire Ponthoreau and published in 2013 as Volume 1 of the series Hart Studies in Comparative Public Law . This new research, covering countries from all the continents, with a special attention to some of the emerging jurisdictions of the Global South, confirms that the practice of making explicit use of foreign precedents is still limited both quantitatively and qualitatively. Judicial dialogue only exists in common law jurisdictions and, even there, "judicial bricolage" is much more common than "judicial comparativism." Since the previous edition, this practice has gone hand in hand with new developments in constitutional law, such as: the democratic erosion and backsliding; the emergence of populist movements; the increasing role of regional human rights courts, which in many cases overshadowed foreign sources; the end of a global vision of constitutionalism. The book, presenting a quantitative and a qualitative analysis, with the support of tables and data, gives a fuller picture of the state of the art of the practice of citing foreign precedents in this new, challenging, era, resulting in essential reading for comparative and constitutional legal scholars.>

Auteur
Tania Groppi is Professor of Public Law at the University of Siena.Marie-Claire Ponthoreau is Professor of Constitutional Law and Comparative Law at the University of Bordeaux, France.Irene Spigno is Professor of Comparative Constitutional Law at the Interamerican Academy of Human Rights, Autonomous University of Coahuila, Mexico.

Contenu
Introduction: Assessing the Use of Foreign Precedents by Constitutional Justices: Ten Years Later Tania Groppi (University of Siena, Italy)*, Marie-Claire Ponthoreau (University of Bordeaux, France) *and Irene Spigno (**Autonomous University of Coahuila, Mexico) Part I: The 'Usual Suspects': Engagement with Foreign Precedents in Common Law Courts 1. An Ongoing Engagement: The Australian High Court and Foreign Case Law Elisa Arcioni (University of Sydney Law School, Australia) and Jeff Gordon (**University of Sydney, Australia) 2. Turbulent Resistance in the Supreme Court of Canada: An Unexpected Backlash Against the Use of Foreign Precedents in Constitutional Interpretation Lise Brun (University of Laval, Canada) 3. India: Using Foreign Precedents to Understand Her Own Constitutional Identity Antonin Vergnes (University of Bordeaux, France) 4. The Use of Foreign Precedents in the Irish Supreme Court's Constitutional Case Law: An Update Cristina Fasone (LUISS University, Italy) 5. The Use of Comparative Law as a Source of Legitimacy for the New Kenyan Judiciary: The Case of the Supreme Court of Kenya Evelyne Asaala (University of Nairobi, Kenya) and Nicoletta Perlo (**University of Toulouse, France) 6. The Use of Foreign Precedents in Malaysian Federal Court: Between Engagement and Restraint Faridah Jalil (University Kebangsaan Malaysia) 7. The Use of Foreign Constitutional Precedents in Singapore: The Paramountcy of Local Context Maartje de Visser (Singapore Management University) 8. The Use of Foreign Precedents by the South African Constitutional Court Judges: Has Anything Changed? Christa Rautenbach (North-West University, South Africa) Part II. In Between: Limited and Selective Reference to Foreign Precedents Worldwide A. Rehearsal of Engagement: Recent Developments in Some Reticent Courts 9. Using Foreign Precedents to Meet the European Standards: The Case of the Constitutional Court of Albania Aurela Anastasi (University of Tirana, Albania) 10. Keep Calm and Carry on Comparing (More) Professionally: The Use of Foreign Precedent by the German Federal Constitutional Court in the 2010s Stefan Martini (University of Kiel, Germany) 11. The Use of Foreign Precedents in a Hybrid Legal Order: The Case of Liechtenstein Peter Bußjäger (University of Innsbruck, Austria) 12. Flirting with Foreign Precedents at the Constitutional Court of Slovenia Tilen tajnpihler Boic (University of Ljubljana, Slovenia) and Samo Bardutzki (University of Ljubljana, Slovenia) 13. The Escalating Use of Foreign Precedents by Individual Justices in Taiwan's Constitutional Court Wen-Chen Chang (National Taiwan University) and Shao-Man Lee (**National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan) B. Lost in the Shuffle: The Use of Foreign Precedents in South American Courts 14. The Use of Foreign Precedents by the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court: Paving the Way for Democracy with a Broad Comparative Approach Manuellita Hermes (University of Brasilia) 15. Importing Legitimacy, Getting Adjudicative Leeway: The Use of Foreign Precedents by the Chilean Constitutional Tribunal Cristián Villalonga (Pontifical Catholic University of Chile) and Johanna Fröhlich (Ludovika University of Public Service, Hungary) 16. The Limited but Significant Use of Foreign Precedents by the Colombian Constitutional Court Magdalena Correa Henao (Externado University, Colombia) and Iván Otero Suárez (**Externado University, Colombia) 17. Fixing a Troubled Relationship: The Use of Foreign Precedents in the Constitutional Court of Ecuador Daniela Salazar Marín (Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Ecuador) and Roberto Eguiguren Calisto (Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Ecuador) C. From Reticent to Selective: The Vast Group of Strategists Courts 18. The Use of Foreign Precedents in Austria: Continuing the Use of Non-Use Anna Gamper (University of Innsbruck, Austria) 19. The Use of Foreign Precedents by the Constitutional Court of Georgia: Explicit Citations and Careful Restraint Malkhaz Nakashidze (Batumi Shota Rustaveli State University, Georgia) 20. Constant Inconsistency. The Use of Foreign Precedents in Hungarian Constitutional Jurisprudence Zoltán Szente (Legal Studies of the Centre for Social Sciences in Budapest, Hungary) and Fruzsina Gárdos-Orosz (Social Sciences of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences) 21. The Use of Foreign Precedents by the Italian Constitutional Court: Something New Under the Sun? Anna Maria Lecis Cocco Ortu (Political Studies Institute Sciences Po Bordeaux, France) 22. Still Residual Mention of Foreign Precedents by the Polish Constitutional Tribunal: No Need or Intention? Anna Michalak (University of Lodz, Poland) 23. The Sparse and Strategic Use of Foreign Precedents by the Constitutional Court of Romania Ramona-Delia Popescu (University of Bucharest, Romania) and Elena Simina Tanasescu (**University of Bucharest, Romania) 24. The Constitutional Court of Korea: Institutionalised Focus on Three Foreign Jurisdictions Soojin Kong (Constitutional Court of Korea) and Fabian Duessel (Constitutional Court of Korea) 25. Switzerland: A Migration of Constitutional Ideas? An Empirical Study of the Use of Foreign Precedents by the Swiss Federal Tribunal Micol Ferrario (Université de Neuchâtel, Switzerland) Part III. Reluctance. Nationalist Courts 26. Foreign Precedents in the Belgian Constitutional Court Case Law: Report on Their Tacit Influence, or How to Play Hide and Seek Anaïs Brucher (UCLouvain, Belgium) and Marc Verdussen (**UCLouvain, Belgium) 27. The Use of Foreign Precedents by the French Conseil Constitutionnel: A Hidden and Marginal Influence Alexis Le Quinio (University of Limoges, France) 28. The Use of Foreign Precedents by the Supreme Court of Japan: Awakening? Akiko Ejima (Meiji University, Japan) 29. The One and Only Explicit Use of Foreign Precedents by the Russian Constitutional Court since 2010 Sergei Belov (St Petersburg State University, Russia) 30. The Reluctant Court. An Analysis of the Use of …