马来西亚法院如何持续进行有意义的宪法权利审查?过去案例的教训与未来之路

Q3 Social Sciences
Benjamin Joshua Ong
{"title":"马来西亚法院如何持续进行有意义的宪法权利审查?过去案例的教训与未来之路","authors":"Benjamin Joshua Ong","doi":"10.1017/asjcl.2024.9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In the past, Malaysian courts performing constitutional rights review played a merely clerical role, applying a test that was trivially easy for legislation to pass. Then a more rigorous proportionality test took root. However, the Federal Court in the 2020 case of Letitia Bosman whittled the test down again, and the courts once more played a minimal role in checking state action. The reasons for this cannot be explained merely by diversity in judicial philosophy or political contextual factors. Rather, the near-demise of proportionality (and, with it, robust constitutional review) was made possible by a lack of a clear sense of the doctrinal foundations of proportionality (and, indeed, of constitutional rights review generally), and the relative roles of the courts and the legislature therein. As a result, there is a risk that the courts’ important role in safeguarding constitutional rights has been minimised to near vanishing point. This article aims, through an analysis of the case law and its foundations, to explain how this came to be, and hence highlight important issues which Malaysian constitutional law must grapple with if meaningful rights review is to take place.","PeriodicalId":39405,"journal":{"name":"Asian Journal of Comparative Law","volume":"3 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Can Malaysian Courts Consistently Perform Meaningful Constitutional Rights Review? Lessons from Past Cases and the Way Forward\",\"authors\":\"Benjamin Joshua Ong\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/asjcl.2024.9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n In the past, Malaysian courts performing constitutional rights review played a merely clerical role, applying a test that was trivially easy for legislation to pass. Then a more rigorous proportionality test took root. However, the Federal Court in the 2020 case of Letitia Bosman whittled the test down again, and the courts once more played a minimal role in checking state action. The reasons for this cannot be explained merely by diversity in judicial philosophy or political contextual factors. Rather, the near-demise of proportionality (and, with it, robust constitutional review) was made possible by a lack of a clear sense of the doctrinal foundations of proportionality (and, indeed, of constitutional rights review generally), and the relative roles of the courts and the legislature therein. As a result, there is a risk that the courts’ important role in safeguarding constitutional rights has been minimised to near vanishing point. This article aims, through an analysis of the case law and its foundations, to explain how this came to be, and hence highlight important issues which Malaysian constitutional law must grapple with if meaningful rights review is to take place.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39405,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian Journal of Comparative Law\",\"volume\":\"3 11\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian Journal of Comparative Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/asjcl.2024.9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Journal of Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/asjcl.2024.9","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

摘要

过去,马来西亚法院在进行宪法权利审查时只是扮演文书的角色,适用的检验标准对立法来说很容易通过。后来,一种更为严格的相称性检验标准逐渐深入人心。然而,联邦法院在 2020 年的莱蒂娅-博斯曼(Letitia Bosman)一案中再次对该检验标准进行了削减,法院在检查国家行为方面再次发挥了微不足道的作用。究其原因,不能仅仅用司法理念的多样性或政治背景因素来解释。相称性(以及随之而来的强有力的宪法审查)之所以几近消亡,是因为人们对相称性(乃至宪法权利审查)的理论基础以及法院和立法机构在其中的相对作用缺乏清晰的认识。因此,法院在保障宪法权利方面的重要作用有可能被最小化,几乎消失殆尽。本文旨在通过对判例法及其基础的分析,解释这种情况是如何形成的,从而强调如果要进行有意义的权利审查,马来西亚宪法必须解决的重要问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How Can Malaysian Courts Consistently Perform Meaningful Constitutional Rights Review? Lessons from Past Cases and the Way Forward
In the past, Malaysian courts performing constitutional rights review played a merely clerical role, applying a test that was trivially easy for legislation to pass. Then a more rigorous proportionality test took root. However, the Federal Court in the 2020 case of Letitia Bosman whittled the test down again, and the courts once more played a minimal role in checking state action. The reasons for this cannot be explained merely by diversity in judicial philosophy or political contextual factors. Rather, the near-demise of proportionality (and, with it, robust constitutional review) was made possible by a lack of a clear sense of the doctrinal foundations of proportionality (and, indeed, of constitutional rights review generally), and the relative roles of the courts and the legislature therein. As a result, there is a risk that the courts’ important role in safeguarding constitutional rights has been minimised to near vanishing point. This article aims, through an analysis of the case law and its foundations, to explain how this came to be, and hence highlight important issues which Malaysian constitutional law must grapple with if meaningful rights review is to take place.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Asian Journal of Comparative Law
Asian Journal of Comparative Law Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: The Asian Journal of Comparative Law (AsJCL) is the leading forum for research and discussion of the law and legal systems of Asia. It embraces work that is theoretical, empirical, socio-legal, doctrinal or comparative that relates to one or more Asian legal systems, as well as work that compares one or more Asian legal systems with non-Asian systems. The Journal seeks articles which display an intimate knowledge of Asian legal systems, and thus provide a window into the way they work in practice. The AsJCL is an initiative of the Asian Law Institute (ASLI), an association established by thirteen leading law schools in Asia and with a rapidly expanding membership base across Asia and in other regions around the world.
×
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