Abstract
Proportionality test is a legal method used by courts, typically constitutional courts, to decide hard cases, which are cases where two or more legitimate rights collide. In such cases a decision necessarily leads to one right prevailing at the expense of another. In order to decide such cases correctly, the court must balance the satisfaction of some rights and the damage to other rights resulting from a judgment. This entry overviews the proportionality test and the four steps of implementing the test. We also discuss the incommensurability problem, which is the main criticism of the balancing approach.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
References
Alder J (2001) Incommensurable values and judicial review: the case of local government. Public Law 4:717–735
Aleinikoff TA (1987) Constitutional law in the age of balancing. Yale Law J 96:943–1005
Alexy R (2002) A theory of constitutional rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Alexy R (2014) Constitutional rights and proportionality. Revus 22:51–65
Barak A (2012) Proportionality: constitutional rights and their limitations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Chang R (1997) Introduction. In: Chang R (ed) Incommensurability, incomparability, and practical reason. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Chang R (2002) The possibility of parity. Ethics 112: 659–688
Chang R (2012) Are hard choices cases of incomparability? Philos Issues 22:106–126
Chang R (2013) Incommensurability (and incomparability). In: LaFollette H (ed) International encyclopedia of ethics. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, pp 2591–2604
Da Silva VA (2011) Comparing the incommensurable: constitutional principles, balancing and rational decision. Oxf J Leg Stud 31:273–301
Edmonds D (2014) Would you kill the fat man? The trolley problem and what your answer tells us about right and wrong. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Endicott T (2014) Proportionality and incommensurability. In: Proportionality and the rule of law: rights, justification, reasoning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 311–342
Frank RH (2008) Why is cost-benefit analysis so controversial? In: Hausman DM (ed) The philosophy of economics: an anthology. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 251–269
Klatt M, Meister M (2012) The constitutional structure of proportionality. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Raz J (1986) Morality of freedom. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Raz J (1999) Engaging reason: on the theory of value and action. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Winter J (2016) Alexyho vážící formule. Právník 5:446–461
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature
About this entry
Cite this entry
Sobek, T., Montag, J. (2018). Proportionality Test. In: Marciano, A., Ramello, G. (eds) Encyclopedia of Law and Economics. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7883-6_721-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7883-6_721-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-7883-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-7883-6
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Economics and FinanceReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences
Publish with us
Chapter history
-
Latest
Proportionality Test- Published:
- 21 January 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7883-6_721-2
-
Original
Proportionality Test- Published:
- 21 March 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7883-6_721-1