Highly Ad Hoc, Contextualized, and Deferential
from Part II - Anemic / Ad Hoc Proportionality
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 September 2020
The Supreme Court of Japan has not officially adopted constitutional proportionality review as an established framework for the judicial review of restrictions on constitutional rights. Instead of articulating a general framework, the Supreme Court prefers to resolve a particular issue within its specific context. As a result, the Supreme Court’s framework of analysis is not well structured, and is highly ad hoc and contextualized. We can see in the reasoning of the Supreme Court some semblance of proportionality review. But the Supreme Court remains highly deferential toward the legislature and the government in most cases.
To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.
To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.