Sticking to Our Lanes: A Survey of Selected Studies on Federalism, Aboriginal Rights, and Charter Jurisprudence in Canada

Minh Thuy Do, Hayley Russell, Robert Schertzer
{"title":"Sticking to Our Lanes: A Survey of Selected Studies on Federalism, Aboriginal Rights, and <i>Charter</i> Jurisprudence in Canada","authors":"Minh Thuy Do, Hayley Russell, Robert Schertzer","doi":"10.1017/s0008423925100966","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Canadian politics is shaped by three intersecting areas of constitutional law: Aboriginal rights, federalism and Charter jurisprudence. While a canon has emerged on the role of courts in Canadian democracy, it is often asserted that Charter scholarship dominates the field. Is this true—and does it matter? We address these questions through a systematic survey of 423 studies published between 2012 and 2022 in leading Canadian journals, books and edited volumes. We find that most work is produced by legal scholars, is descriptive, focuses on the Charter and examines a narrow range of cases and themes—most notably the court’s relationship with other institutions, its legitimacy and its power of judicial review. We argue that advancing our understanding of courts in Canadian democracy requires moving beyond our tendency to stick to our lanes—engaging core theories of judicial politics, employing explanatory methods and analyzing multiple areas of constitutional law.","PeriodicalId":9491,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Political Science","volume":"1 1","pages":"1-32"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/B41C9D3F40BF14B537FD6E1811074A53/S0008423925100966a.pdf/div-class-title-sticking-to-our-lanes-a-survey-of-selected-studies-on-federalism-aboriginal-rights-and-span-class-italic-charter-span-jurisprudence-in-canada-div.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0008423925100966","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Canadian politics is shaped by three intersecting areas of constitutional law: Aboriginal rights, federalism and Charter jurisprudence. While a canon has emerged on the role of courts in Canadian democracy, it is often asserted that Charter scholarship dominates the field. Is this true—and does it matter? We address these questions through a systematic survey of 423 studies published between 2012 and 2022 in leading Canadian journals, books and edited volumes. We find that most work is produced by legal scholars, is descriptive, focuses on the Charter and examines a narrow range of cases and themes—most notably the court’s relationship with other institutions, its legitimacy and its power of judicial review. We argue that advancing our understanding of courts in Canadian democracy requires moving beyond our tendency to stick to our lanes—engaging core theories of judicial politics, employing explanatory methods and analyzing multiple areas of constitutional law.
坚持我们的路线:加拿大联邦主义、原住民权利和宪章法学研究综述
加拿大政治是由宪法的三个交叉领域所塑造的:土著权利、联邦制和宪章法学。虽然法院在加拿大民主中所扮演的角色已经形成了规范,但人们经常断言,宪章奖学金在这一领域占据主导地位。这是真的吗?这有关系吗?我们通过对2012年至2022年间发表在加拿大主要期刊、书籍和编辑卷上的423项研究的系统调查来解决这些问题。我们发现,大多数工作都是由法律学者撰写的,是描述性的,聚焦于《宪章》,并研究了范围狭窄的案件和主题——最引人注目的是法院与其他机构的关系、其合法性和司法审查的权力。我们认为,要增进我们对加拿大民主法院的理解,就需要超越我们固步自行的倾向——运用司法政治的核心理论,采用解释性方法,分析宪法的多个领域。
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
小红书