Comparison Of Judicial Review: A Critical Approach To The Model In Several Countries

A. Wijaya, Nasran Nasran
{"title":"Comparison Of Judicial Review: A Critical Approach To The Model In Several Countries","authors":"A. Wijaya, Nasran Nasran","doi":"10.33756/jelta.v14i2.11809","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this study is to analyze the comparative model of judicial review in Indonesia and other countries. This research uses normative legal research. The approaches used by researchers in compiling this research are, among others: the legal approach; historical approach; and comparative approach. The results of this study indicate that in principle the constitutional review system in several countries shows a variety of color gradations that are tailored to the needs of each country. In general, there are 3 (three) constitutionality testing mechanisms that have been developed to date, namely: First, the constitutionality testing of laws is carried out by existing judicial institutions or non-special adjudication, namely the Supreme Court. The country that adopts this system is the United States of America. Second, the constitutionality test of the law is carried out by a special judicial institution, namely the Constitutional Court. Countries that have adopted this system are Indonesia, Germany, South Korea, South Africa, Russia, Thailand and Turkey. The constitutionality of the law is examined by non-judicial institutions. The country that adopted this system is France.","PeriodicalId":241586,"journal":{"name":"JURNAL LEGALITAS","volume":"172 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"28","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JURNAL LEGALITAS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33756/jelta.v14i2.11809","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 28

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to analyze the comparative model of judicial review in Indonesia and other countries. This research uses normative legal research. The approaches used by researchers in compiling this research are, among others: the legal approach; historical approach; and comparative approach. The results of this study indicate that in principle the constitutional review system in several countries shows a variety of color gradations that are tailored to the needs of each country. In general, there are 3 (three) constitutionality testing mechanisms that have been developed to date, namely: First, the constitutionality testing of laws is carried out by existing judicial institutions or non-special adjudication, namely the Supreme Court. The country that adopts this system is the United States of America. Second, the constitutionality test of the law is carried out by a special judicial institution, namely the Constitutional Court. Countries that have adopted this system are Indonesia, Germany, South Korea, South Africa, Russia, Thailand and Turkey. The constitutionality of the law is examined by non-judicial institutions. The country that adopted this system is France.
司法审查的比较:对各国司法审查模式的批判
本研究的目的是分析印尼与其他国家司法审查的比较模式。本研究采用规范法学研究。研究人员在编制这项研究时使用的方法包括:法律方法;历史的方法;比较方法。这项研究的结果表明,在原则上,几个国家的宪法审查制度显示出各种颜色的等级,以适应每个国家的需要。一般来说,迄今为止发展起来的合宪性检验机制有3(三)种,即:第一,法律的合宪性检验是由现有的司法机构或非特别裁判机构,即最高法院进行的。采用这种制度的国家是美利坚合众国。其次,法律的合宪性检验是由一个专门的司法机构,即宪法法院进行的。采用这一制度的国家有印度尼西亚、德国、韩国、南非、俄罗斯、泰国和土耳其。法律的合宪性由非司法机构审查。采用这种制度的国家是法国。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信