Your email address will be used for Wildy’s marketing materials only. We will never give your email address to any third party. You may opt out at any time by following the unsubscribe link included in every email.
Special Discounts for Newly Called & Students
Browse Secondhand Online
Wildy's will be closed on Monday 28th May, re-opening on Tuesday 29th.
Online book orders received during the time we are closed will be processed as soon as possible once we re-open on Tuesday.
As usual credit cards will not be charged until the order is processed and ready to despatch.
Any Sweet & Maxwell or Lexis eBook orders placed after 4pm on the Friday 25th May will not be processed until Tuesday May 29th. UK orders for other publishers will be processed as normal. All non-UK eBook orders will be processed on Tuesday May 29th.
In recent decades, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom have enacted bills of rights containing a number of innovative features that distinguish them from the bills of rights found in most other countries. They have consequently challenged judges, legislators and scholars to rethink a number of foundational issues in the field of rights constitutionalism, including the compatibility of rights-based judicial review with democratic self-government (the counter-majoritarian difficulty), the legislature’s role in the protection of rights, and the limits of constitutional design.
This book proposes a new theoretical framework for analysing these issues that moves away from existing approaches that focus on the concept of dialogue. It argues that inquiry should start with the types of disagreement between the three arms of government on rights issues that different forms of rights constitutionalism facilitate. This framework helps us answer three questions about the bills of rights in these four Commonwealth countries. How do they differ from the pre-existing constitutional approaches to the protection of rights? Why, if at all, should we consider the Commonwealth’s approach to rights protection over the more traditional models? What compromises must be struck when adopting a bill of rights of this variety?