Constitutional Interpretation and Foreign Law: A Comparative Analysis between the U.S. Supreme Court and the German Federal Constitutional Court
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21056/aec.v16i66.363Palavras-chave:
Constitutional interpretation, Constitutional Courts, Judicial reviewResumo
The central purpose of this paper is to show that there are no major differences in the methods of constitutional interpretation in countries with varying degree of judicial review. Despite the fact that legal culture and traditions, underlying political theories, and values all affect methods of interpretation, there is no big gap in constitutional interpretation in practice in view of wide interpretive discretion. Obviously all legal systems require compliance with some fundamental interpretive standards irrespective of the legal system, and in a democratic society judicial decisions should be justified at least to avoid arbitrariness. The question is what are the limits beyond which judges cannot go in constitutional democracies? Can the foreign law be a parameter for judicial review of legislation? Hence, the style and method of legal argumentation that are used to justify the decision may differ in the countries belonging to different legal systems. Whether there are significant differences between the common law and civil law constitutional interpretation will be assessed through the comparative analysis of the United States Supreme Court and the German Federal Constitutional Court.
Referências
ALEXANDER, Larry; SHERWIN, Emily. Judges as Rule Makers. In: EDLIN, Douglas E. Introduction in Common Law Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
BRISON, Susan J.; SINNOTT-ARMSTRONG, Walter. A Philosophical Introduction to Constitutional Law. In: BRISON, Susan J.; SINNOTT-ARMSTRONG, Walter (Org.). Contemporary Perspectives on Constitutional Interpretation. Boulder: Westview Press, 1993, p. 1-14.
BRUGGER, Winfried. Legal Interpretation, Schools of Jurisprudence, and Anthropology: Some Remarks From A German Point of View. In: DORSEN, Norman et. al. Comparative Constitutionalism: cases and materials. Saint Paul: West Group, 2003.
CARDOZO, Benjamin N. Nature of the Judicial Process. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960.
CARTER, Leif H. Reason in Law. In: MURPHY, Walter F. et. al. Courts, Judges & politics: an introduction to the judicial process. 6. ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2006.
COHEN, Morris. Law and the social order: essays in legal philosophy. London: Transaction Books, 2001.
DORSEN, Norman et. al. Comparative Constitutionalism: cases and materials. Saint Paul: West Group, 2003.
DWORKIN, Ronald. Law’s empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986.
EBERLE, Edward J. Dignity and Liberty: constitutional visions in Germany and the United States. Santa Barbara:Praeger Publishers, 2002.
EDLIN, Douglas E. Introduction in Common Law Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
EISENBERG, Melvin A. The Principles of Legal Reasoning in Common Law. In: EDLIN, Douglas E. Introduction in Common Law Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. 81-101.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. U.S. Supreme Court. Marbury v. Madison. Disponível em: <https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html>. Acesso em: 1 jan. 2016.
______. U.S. Supreme Court. Cooper v. Aaron. Disponível em: <https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/358/1/case.html>. Acesso em: 19mai. 2016.
______. U.S. Supreme Court. Bell v. Thompson.Disponível em: <https://casetext.com/case/bell-v-thompson-2>. Acesso em: 16 out. 2015.
______. U.S. Supreme Court. Korematsu v. United States.Disponível em: <https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/323/214/case.html>. Acesso em: 06 jan. 2016.
______. U.S. Supreme Court. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.Disponível em: <https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/347/483>. Acesso em: 21 nov. 2015.
______. U.S. Supreme Court. Planned Parenthoodof Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.Disponível em: <https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/833/>. Acesso em: 06 jan. 2016.
______. U.S. Supreme Court. Plessy v. Ferguson.Disponível em: <https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/163/537/>. Acesso em: 06 jan. 2016.
______. U.S. Supreme Court. MackPherson v. buick Motor Co..Disponível em: <http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts-keyed-to-prosser/duty-of-care/macpherson-v-buick-motor-co-2/>. Acesso em: 16 out. 2015.
______. U.S. Supreme Court. McCulloch v. Maryland.Disponível em: <https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/17/316/case.html>. Acesso em: 1mai. 2016.
______. U.S. Supreme Court. State of Missouri v. Holland.Disponível em: <https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/252/416/case.html>. Acesso em: 06 jan. 2016.
______. U.S. Supreme Court. Lawrence v. Texas. Disponível em: <https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZO.html>. Acesso em: 16 out. 2015.
______.U.S. SupremeCourt. Atkins v. Virginia. Disponível em: <https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/536/304/case.html>. Acesso em: 1 mai. 2016.
______.U.S. SupremeCourt. Roper v. Simmons. Disponível em: <https://www.wcl.american.edu/journal/genderlaw/13/borra3.pdf>. Acesso em: 1mai. 2016.
______.The U.S. Constitution, Article 5. Washington: Kidhaven Press, 2015.
GLENN, Patrick H. Legal traditions of the world. 3. ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.
GUNTER, Gerald. The Supreme Court 1971 Term (Foreword). In: Search of Evolving Doctrine on a Changing Court: a Model for a Newer Equal Protection, Harvard Law Review, n. 86, 1972, p. 1-12.
HÄBERLE, Peter. VerfassungalsöffentlicherProzeß. Berlin: Duncker&Humblot, 1978.
HOLMES, Oliver Wendell. Thecommon law. Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1881.
JAKAB, András. Constitutional Reasoning: a European Perspective on Judicial Reasoning in Constitutional Courts, German Law Journal, 2013, v. 8, p. 1215-1278.
KAGAN, Robert A. Constitutional Litigation in the United States. In: ROGOWSKI, Ralf; GAWRON, Thomas(Orgs.). Constitutional Courts in Comparison. New York: Berghahn Books, 2002.
KELSEN, Hans. General Theory of Law and State.Tradução: Anders Wedberg. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2009.
KNIGHT, Jack; EPSTEIN, Lee. The Norm of Stare Decisis. In: MURPHY, Walter F. et. al. Courts, Judges & politics: an introduction to the judicial process. 6. ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2006.
KOMMERS, Donald P. Germany: Balancing Rights and Duties. In: GOLDSWORTHY, Jeffrey. Interpreting Constitutions: a comparative study. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
KOMMERS, Donald P.; MILLER, Russell A. Das Bundsverfassungsgericht: Procedure, Practive and Policy of the German Federal Constitutional Court, Journal of Comparative Law, v. 3, p. 194-211.
______. The constitutional jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany. 2. ed. London: Duke University Press, 1997.
MAGIERA, Siegfried. The Interpretation of the Basic Law. In: STARCK, Christian (Org.). Main principles of the German Basic Law. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1983, p. 89-105.
MARKESINIS, Basil S.; FEDTKE, Jörg. Judicial Recourse to Foreign Law: A New Source of Inspiration? New York: Routledge, 2012.
MICHALOWSKI, Sabine; WOODS, Lorna. German Constitutional Law: theprotection of civil liberties. New York: Ashgate/Dartmouth, 1999.
MURPHY, Walter F. et. al. Courts, Judges & politics: an introduction to the judicial process. 6. ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2006.
POSNER, Richard. Legal Formalism, Legal Realism, and Interpretation of the Constitution and Statutes, Case Western Reserve Law Review, 1986-87, v. 37, n. 2, p. 179-217.
POSTEMA, Gerald J. A Similibus and Similia: analogical thinking in law. In: EDLIN, Douglas E. Introduction in Common Law Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. 102-133.
POUND, Roscoe. Mechanical Jurisprudence, Columbia Law Review, v. 8, 1908, p. 605-623.
RAZ, Joseph. The authority of law. 2. ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
REHNQUIST, William H. The Notion of a Living Constitution, Texas Law Review, 1976, v. 54, p. 693.
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY. Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany. Washington: Intercultural Press, 2014.
______. German Federal ConstitutionalCourt. BVerfGE 14.Disponível em: <http://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv014174.html>. Acesso em: 1 mai. 2016.
______. German Federal Constitutional Court. BVerfGE 5. Disponível em: <http://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv005085.html>. Acesso em: 21 jan. 2016.
______. German Federal ConstitutionalCourt. BVerfGE3.Disponível em: <http://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv005085.html>. Acesso em: 25 mar. 2016.
ROGOWSKI, Ralf; GAWRON, Thomas. Constitutional Litigation as Dispute Processing, Comparing the U.S. Supreme Court and the German Federal Constitutional Court. In: ROGOWSKI, Ralf; GAWRON, Thomas(Orgs.). Constitutional Courts in Comparison. New York: Berghahn Books, 2002.
ROSENFELD, Michel. Constitutional Adjudication in Europe and the United States: paradoxes and contrasts,International Journal of Constitutional Law, v. 2, n. 4, p. 633-668.
SCALIA, Antonin. A matter of interpretation: federal courts and the law. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1997.
SEGAL, Jaffrey A.; SPAETH, Harold J. The influence of Stare Decisis on the Votes of United States Supreme Court Justices. In: MURPHY, Walter F. et. al. Courts, Judges & politics: an introduction to the judicial process. 6. ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2006.
SHAMAN, Jeffrey M. Constitutional interpretation: illusion and reality. London: Greenwood Press Westport, Connecticut, 2003.
SPAAK, Torben. Kelsen and Hart on the Normativity of Law, Stockholm Institute for Scandianvian Law, 2012, v. 20, p. 398-414.
STARCK, Christian. Constitutional Interpretation. In: STARCK, Christian (Org.). The studies in german constitutionalism. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1995, p. 47-70.
STONE, Julius. Legal system and lawyers’ reasoning. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1964.
STRAUSS, David A. CommonLaw Constitutional Interpretation, The University ofChicago Law Review, 1996, v. 63, p. 877-935.
TUSHNET, Mark. The United States: Eclecticism in the Service of Pragmatism. In: GOLDSWORTHY, Jeffrey (Org.). Interpreting constitutions: a comparative study.New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
ZIMMERMANN, Reinhard. Characteristic Aspects of German Legal Culture. In: REIMANN, Mathias; ZEKOLL, Joachim. Introduction to German Law. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2005, p. 1-52.
Downloads
Publicado
Edição
Seção
Licença
Autores que publicam nesta revista concordam com os seguintes termos:- Autores mantém os direitos autorais e concedem à revista o direito de primeira publicação, com o trabalho simultaneamente licenciado sob a Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial-SemDerivações 4.0 Internacional.
- Autores têm autorização para assumir contratos adicionais separadamente, para distribuição não-exclusiva da versão do trabalho publicada nesta revista (ex.: publicar em repositório institucional ou como capítulo de livro), com reconhecimento de autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista.
- Autores têm permissão e são estimulados a publicar e distribuir seu trabalho online (ex.: em repositórios institucionais ou na sua página pessoal) a qualquer ponto antes ou durante o processo editorial, já que isso pode gerar alterações produtivas, bem como aumentar o impacto e a citação do trabalho publicado (Veja O Efeito do Acesso Livre).
