July 6 @ 11:45 - 13:15 CESTJuly 6 @ 09:45 - 11:15 UTCJuly 6 @ 05:45 - 07:15 New YorkJuly 6 @ 04:45 - 06:15 BogotáJuly 6 @ 17:45 - 19:15 SingaporeJuly 6 @ 19:45 - 21:15 Sydney
Context and Implications of Pluralism in Constitutional Reviews: Lessons from Comparative Studies of Japan, Italy, and South Korea
Today, constitutional review systems are prevalent in many countries. Some constitutional doctrines, such as the proportionality review, are consistently used across jurisdictions. At the same time, however, pluralism can be observed regarding the framework of constitutional decision-making and the courts’ eagerness to declare the unconstitutionality of a law. Such pluralism is a product of some factors: the constitutional status of supreme/constitutional courts, the political situation, and the historical and cultural context. This panel explores the process of the emergence of pluralism in constitutional review and the advantages and disadvantages of maintaining that pluralism through the analysis and comparison of constitutional review practices in three countries: Japan, Italy, and South Korea.