CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 327Comparative constitutional jurisprudence studiesLegal Rights and Human RightsJudicial and Constitutional Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Proportionality: Constitutional Rights and their Limitations

Barak, Aharon·2012·Cambridge University Press eBooks
DOI 10.1017/cbo9781139035293
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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

Crossref · 10.1017/cbo9781139035293

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 305

Related

See all

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
DOI
10.1017/cbo9781139035293
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
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 138 d)
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