Demokrati och lagprövning : om rättfärdigandet av en positiv respektive negativ inställning till lagprövning
(2008) In Statsvetenskaplig tidskrift- Abstract
- This article focuses on the justification of a positive and a negative attitude respectively towards judicial review. The analysis is performed by textual analysis of the texts of four authors with different opinions on the subject matter: Robert Dahl and Jeremy Waldron who have a negative attitude towards judicial review, and Erwin Chemerinsky and Ronald Dworkin who have a positive attitude. A theoretical model is being used for the analysis, which consists of different dimensions of the issue of democracy and judicial review. The study shows that there are important differences in the democratic values underpinning a positive and a negative attitude. There are differences of opinion on the balance between democracy as; process or... (More)
- This article focuses on the justification of a positive and a negative attitude respectively towards judicial review. The analysis is performed by textual analysis of the texts of four authors with different opinions on the subject matter: Robert Dahl and Jeremy Waldron who have a negative attitude towards judicial review, and Erwin Chemerinsky and Ronald Dworkin who have a positive attitude. A theoretical model is being used for the analysis, which consists of different dimensions of the issue of democracy and judicial review. The study shows that there are important differences in the democratic values underpinning a positive and a negative attitude. There are differences of opinion on the balance between democracy as; process or substance, rule by the broad mass of people or rule by an elite, the spirit of the community or the rights of the individual. The analysis also points out that there are differences concerning the comprehension of the important democratic concepts of liberty and equality. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/961964
- author
- Gunneflo, Markus LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2008
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- in press
- subject
- in
- Statsvetenskaplig tidskrift
- publisher
- Fahlbeckska stiftelsen
- ISSN
- 0039-0747
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 662f24e3-a1c6-4bb0-b658-6455636c6806 (old id 961964)
- date added to LUP
- 2016-04-04 10:48:11
- date last changed
- 2022-10-12 13:47:10
@article{662f24e3-a1c6-4bb0-b658-6455636c6806,
abstract = {{This article focuses on the justification of a positive and a negative attitude respectively towards judicial review. The analysis is performed by textual analysis of the texts of four authors with different opinions on the subject matter: Robert Dahl and Jeremy Waldron who have a negative attitude towards judicial review, and Erwin Chemerinsky and Ronald Dworkin who have a positive attitude. A theoretical model is being used for the analysis, which consists of different dimensions of the issue of democracy and judicial review. The study shows that there are important differences in the democratic values underpinning a positive and a negative attitude. There are differences of opinion on the balance between democracy as; process or substance, rule by the broad mass of people or rule by an elite, the spirit of the community or the rights of the individual. The analysis also points out that there are differences concerning the comprehension of the important democratic concepts of liberty and equality.}},
author = {{Gunneflo, Markus}},
issn = {{0039-0747}},
language = {{eng}},
publisher = {{Fahlbeckska stiftelsen}},
series = {{Statsvetenskaplig tidskrift}},
title = {{Demokrati och lagprövning : om rättfärdigandet av en positiv respektive negativ inställning till lagprövning}},
year = {{2008}},
}