Comparative Judicial Engagement
Edited by Liora Lazarus, Christopher McCrudden and Nigel Bowles
This book is about judicial
reasoning in human rights cases. The aim is to explore the question: how
is it that notionally universal norms are reasoned by courts in such
significantly different ways? What is the shape
of this reasoning; which techniques are common across the transnational
jurisprudence; and which are particular?
The book, comprising
contributions by a team of world-leading human rights scholars, moves
beyond simply addressing the institutional questions concerning courts
and human rights, which often dominate discussions
of this kind, seeking instead a deeper examination of the similarities
and divergence of reasonings by different courts when addressing
comparable human rights questions. These differences, while partly
influenced by institutional concerns, cannot be attributed
to them alone. This book explores the diverse and rich underlying
spectrum of human rights reasoning, as a distinctive and particular form
of legal reasoning, evident in the case studies across the selected
jurisdictions.
Liora Lazarus is a Fellow in Law and Associate Professor in Law at St Anne's College, University of Oxford.
Christopher McCrudden
FBA is Professor of Equality and Human Rights Law, Queen's University
Belfast; William W Cook Global Professor of Law at University
of Michigan Law School; and a member of Blackstone Chambers.
Nigel Bowles is Director of the Rothermere American Institute at the University of Oxford.
