The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Proportionality: Constitutional Rights and their Limitations
Abstract
Having identified proportionality as the main tool for limiting constitutional rights, Aharon Barak explores its four components (proper purpose, rational connection, necessity and proportionality stricto sensu) and discusses the relationships between proportionality and reasonableness and between courts and legislation. He goes on to analyse the concept of deference and to consider the main arguments against the use of proportionality (incommensurability and irrationality). Alternatives to proportionality are compared and future developments of proportionality are suggested.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The reasoning behind this step is strongly linked to the moral and political background of the individual arguments and the context of the given society. 21 35”
From Dark side of the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality: the case of mandatory vaccination (2025) · cites this paper as [21]
In the citing paper
“An MVP may be considered proportionate in a narrower sense only when its benefits in a given society outweigh its costs.”
From Dark side of the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality: the case of mandatory vaccination (2025) · cites this paper as [21]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Proportionality and the Culture of Justification
Cohen‐Eliya, M., & Porat, I. (2010) · The American Journal of Comparative Law · doi:10.5131/ajcl.2010.0018 · Cited by 169
The law of belligerent occupation in the Supreme Court of Israel
Kretzmer, D. (2012) · International Review of the Red Cross · doi:10.1017/s1816383112000446 · Cited by 85
Mining legal arguments in court decisions
Habernal, I., Faber, D. R., Recchia, N., Bretthauer, S., Gurevych, I., Döhmann, I. S. G., & Burchard, C. (2023) · Artificial Intelligence and Law · doi:10.1007/s10506-023-09361-y · Cited by 108
“First, we design a new annotation scheme for legal arguments in proceedings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) that is deeply rooted in the theory and practice of legal argumentation research (Grabenwarter and Pabel 2021; Rüthers et al. 2022; Schabas 2015; Ammann 2019; Barak 2012).”
InfluentialMorris, D. G. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108872324 · Cited by 41
Human Rights and Large-Scale Carbon Dioxide Removal: Potential Limits to BECCS and DACCS Deployment
Günther, P., & Ekardt, F. (2022) · Land · doi:10.3390/land11122153 · Cited by 48
Metadata
- Authors
- Barak, A.
- Affiliations
- Reichman University (IL)
- Corresponding author
- Barak, Aharon
- Venue
- Cambridge University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 2012-01-19
- OpenAlex
- W4301911951
- Cited by
- 327
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 59 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 10.60
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Comparative constitutional jurisprudence studies
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal Rights and Human Rights
- Social Sciences › Law › Judicial and Constitutional Studies
- Keywords
- proportionality, constitutional rights, reasonableness, necessity, incommensurability, judicial review, limits on rights
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Proportionality: Constitutional Rights and their Limitations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/cbo9781139035293
- The paper
- Barak, A. (2012). Proportionality: Constitutional Rights and their Limitations. Cambridge University Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139035293
