Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 10 - Courting Collaborative Constitutionalism

  • from Part III - Judge as Partner
  • Aileen Kavanagh, Trinity College Dublin
  • Book:
    The Collaborative Constitution
    Published online:
    12 October 2023
    Print publication:
    26 October 2023, pp 297-330

  • Summary

    This chapter documents the array of tools and techniques judges use when carrying out their adjudicative role as part of a broader collaborative enterprise. Whilst the theoretical literature often presents courts as speaking in prospective, prescriptive, and peremptory terms, this chapter uncovers a vast array of collaborative devices which courts use in subtle but significant ways. Presenting the courts ’as catalyst’, and foregrounding the idea of ’judge as nudge’, this chapter explores the varied phenomena of judicial alerts, prods and pleas, soft suggestions, and judicial advice. It uses the controversial Nicklinson case on assisted suicide as a vehicle through which to examine collaborative constitutionalism before the courts. The chapter concludes by arguing that the devices canvassed in this chapter are best conceived as collaborative devices, rather than the ’passive virtues’ defended in Alexander Bickel’s canonical account of adjudication by the US Supreme Court.