Utilizing External-Knowledge in Means-Ends Analysis: A Comparative Study on Taiwanese and U.S. Cases Regarding Interdisciplinary Approaches to Constitutional Reasoning

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Means-Ends Analysis (MEA) is an essential stage of human rights cases in constitutional review. Traditionally, this analysis is conducted under formalistic notion; nevertheless, under the influence of legal realism movement, the U.S. Supreme Court had adopted interdisciplinary approaches in many cases. In recent years, the Taiwanese Constitutional Court (TCC) also shows an interest in interdisciplinary approaches occasionally. This essay will focus on some landmark human rights cases under these two jurisdictions. By comparative research, some common strengths as well as weaknesses of interdisciplinary approaches of MEA in constitutional reasoning may be revealed at a fundamental level of constitutional law that are beyond the boundaries of legal traditions (i.e. common law v. civil law). Those strengths and weaknesses may address the essence of interdisciplinary approaches to (constitutional) law as a distinctive legal methodology.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-51
Number of pages51
JournalNational Taiwan University Law Review
Volume13
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018

Fingerprint

constitutional law
human rights
civil law
constitutional court
comparative research
common law
realism
Supreme Court
jurisdiction
methodology

Keywords

  • Constitutional Law
  • Taiwan Constitutional Court
  • Interdisciplinary Approaches
  • Legal Realism
  • Proportionality Test

Cite this

@article{dedea6e5e31d4438a07c595ec3552087,
title = "Utilizing External-Knowledge in Means-Ends Analysis: A Comparative Study on Taiwanese and U.S. Cases Regarding Interdisciplinary Approaches to Constitutional Reasoning",
abstract = "Means-Ends Analysis (MEA) is an essential stage of human rights cases in constitutional review. Traditionally, this analysis is conducted under formalistic notion; nevertheless, under the influence of legal realism movement, the U.S. Supreme Court had adopted interdisciplinary approaches in many cases. In recent years, the Taiwanese Constitutional Court (TCC) also shows an interest in interdisciplinary approaches occasionally. This essay will focus on some landmark human rights cases under these two jurisdictions. By comparative research, some common strengths as well as weaknesses of interdisciplinary approaches of MEA in constitutional reasoning may be revealed at a fundamental level of constitutional law that are beyond the boundaries of legal traditions (i.e. common law v. civil law). Those strengths and weaknesses may address the essence of interdisciplinary approaches to (constitutional) law as a distinctive legal methodology.",
keywords = "憲法, 臺灣憲法法院, 科際整合法學, 法律務實主義, 比例原則, Constitutional Law, Taiwan Constitutional Court, Interdisciplinary Approaches, Legal Realism, Proportionality Test",
author = "Wen-Yu Chia",
year = "2018",
doi = "10.3966/181263242018031301001",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
pages = "1--51",
journal = "臺大法學評論",
publisher = "國立臺灣大學",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Utilizing External-Knowledge in Means-Ends Analysis: A Comparative Study on Taiwanese and U.S. Cases Regarding Interdisciplinary Approaches to Constitutional Reasoning

AU - Chia, Wen-Yu

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - Means-Ends Analysis (MEA) is an essential stage of human rights cases in constitutional review. Traditionally, this analysis is conducted under formalistic notion; nevertheless, under the influence of legal realism movement, the U.S. Supreme Court had adopted interdisciplinary approaches in many cases. In recent years, the Taiwanese Constitutional Court (TCC) also shows an interest in interdisciplinary approaches occasionally. This essay will focus on some landmark human rights cases under these two jurisdictions. By comparative research, some common strengths as well as weaknesses of interdisciplinary approaches of MEA in constitutional reasoning may be revealed at a fundamental level of constitutional law that are beyond the boundaries of legal traditions (i.e. common law v. civil law). Those strengths and weaknesses may address the essence of interdisciplinary approaches to (constitutional) law as a distinctive legal methodology.

AB - Means-Ends Analysis (MEA) is an essential stage of human rights cases in constitutional review. Traditionally, this analysis is conducted under formalistic notion; nevertheless, under the influence of legal realism movement, the U.S. Supreme Court had adopted interdisciplinary approaches in many cases. In recent years, the Taiwanese Constitutional Court (TCC) also shows an interest in interdisciplinary approaches occasionally. This essay will focus on some landmark human rights cases under these two jurisdictions. By comparative research, some common strengths as well as weaknesses of interdisciplinary approaches of MEA in constitutional reasoning may be revealed at a fundamental level of constitutional law that are beyond the boundaries of legal traditions (i.e. common law v. civil law). Those strengths and weaknesses may address the essence of interdisciplinary approaches to (constitutional) law as a distinctive legal methodology.

KW - 憲法

KW - 臺灣憲法法院

KW - 科際整合法學

KW - 法律務實主義

KW - 比例原則

KW - Constitutional Law

KW - Taiwan Constitutional Court

KW - Interdisciplinary Approaches

KW - Legal Realism

KW - Proportionality Test

U2 - 10.3966/181263242018031301001

DO - 10.3966/181263242018031301001

M3 - Article

VL - 13

SP - 1

EP - 51

JO - 臺大法學評論

JF - 臺大法學評論

IS - 1

ER -