Taking Process-Based Theory Seriously: Could ‘Discrete and Insular Minorities’ Be Protected Under the Australian Constitution?

Q3 Social Sciences
Amelia Loughland
{"title":"Taking Process-Based Theory Seriously: Could ‘Discrete and Insular Minorities’ Be Protected Under the Australian Constitution?","authors":"Amelia Loughland","doi":"10.1177/0067205X20927813","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The High Court is committed to protecting the substantive rights necessary for the effective functioning of the constitutionally entrenched system of representative and responsible government. This is consistent with a ‘representation-reinforcing’ approach to constitutional review as advocated by John Hart Ely in the United States, in which judicial intervention is limited to protecting the ordinary political processes established by the Constitution rather than adjudicating on its outcomes. While the High Court has demonstrated an Elyian commitment to keeping open the channels of political change, it has not engaged with the protection of minority rights or equality concerns more broadly which were a key element of process-based theory. In this article, I argue that the judicial protection of minority rights is a necessary and desirable corollary of the constitutional entrenchment of representative government in the Australian Constitution. I explore how this could arise through either a freestanding guarantee of equality or in a weaker form by inflecting other areas of constitutional practice. Ultimately, I acknowledge that while the High Court’s current interpretive approach may not support a broad protection of equality, its process-based protection of representative government provides an available means to recognise minority rights under the Australian Constitution.","PeriodicalId":37273,"journal":{"name":"Federal Law Review","volume":"48 1","pages":"324 - 349"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0067205X20927813","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Federal Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X20927813","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The High Court is committed to protecting the substantive rights necessary for the effective functioning of the constitutionally entrenched system of representative and responsible government. This is consistent with a ‘representation-reinforcing’ approach to constitutional review as advocated by John Hart Ely in the United States, in which judicial intervention is limited to protecting the ordinary political processes established by the Constitution rather than adjudicating on its outcomes. While the High Court has demonstrated an Elyian commitment to keeping open the channels of political change, it has not engaged with the protection of minority rights or equality concerns more broadly which were a key element of process-based theory. In this article, I argue that the judicial protection of minority rights is a necessary and desirable corollary of the constitutional entrenchment of representative government in the Australian Constitution. I explore how this could arise through either a freestanding guarantee of equality or in a weaker form by inflecting other areas of constitutional practice. Ultimately, I acknowledge that while the High Court’s current interpretive approach may not support a broad protection of equality, its process-based protection of representative government provides an available means to recognise minority rights under the Australian Constitution.
认真对待基于过程的理论:“离散和岛屿少数群体”能否受到澳大利亚宪法的保护?
高等法院致力于保护宪法规定的代议制和负责任政府制度有效运作所必需的实质性权利。这与约翰·哈特·伊利(John Hart Ely)在美国倡导的宪法审查的“代表强化”方法是一致的,在这种方法中,司法干预仅限于保护宪法规定的普通政治程序,而不是对其结果进行裁决。虽然高等法院表现出对保持政治变革渠道畅通的伊利安式承诺,但它没有更广泛地参与保护少数人权利或平等问题,而这是基于过程的理论的一个关键因素。在这篇文章中,我认为对少数人权利的司法保护是澳大利亚宪法中代议制政府的宪法保障的必要和可取的必然结果。我探讨了如何通过独立的平等保障或通过影响宪法实践的其他领域以较弱的形式出现这种情况。最后,我承认,虽然高等法院目前的解释方法可能不支持对平等的广泛保护,但其基于程序的代议制政府保护提供了一种承认澳大利亚宪法规定的少数民族权利的可行手段。
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
Federal Law Review
Federal Law Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信