HAL will be down for maintenance from Friday, June 10 at 4pm through Monday, June 13 at 9am. More information
Skip to Main content Skip to Navigation
Journal articles

Is Judicial Review Undemocratic?

Abstract : Jeremy Waldron has long argued that judicial review is inconsistent with the importance that democracies properly attach to political participation and to equality. This paper looks at those arguments as recently summarised in a paper called “The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review”. Waldron’s arguments highlight the apparent incongruity of a democracy giving a small group of unelected judges the last word on matters which concern citizens and legislators, and on which citizens and legislators may be at least as well-informed, and capable of reasoned decisions, as judges. In addition to a properly functioning judiciary, Waldron believes, democracies should normally be expected to have citizens and legislators who care about, and are capable of protecting, the basic rights of members. Hence, he claims, there is no compelling reason to prefer the decisions of judges to legislators where rights are at stake, and good reasons to believe that doing so detracts from important democratic values and rights. [First paragraph]
Complete list of metadata

Contributor : Spire Sciences Po Institutional Repository Connect in order to contact the contributor
Submitted on : Thursday, March 12, 2020 - 1:49:15 PM
Last modification on : Wednesday, January 19, 2022 - 3:38:05 AM




Annabelle Lever. Is Judicial Review Undemocratic?. Public Law, 2007, pp.280 - 298. ⟨hal-02506476⟩



Record views