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

貢獻的翻譯標題: 「法外知識」於目的手段審查之運用:科際整合憲法論證方法之臺美比較研究

研究成果: 雜誌貢獻文章

摘要

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.
原文英語
頁(從 - 到)1-51
頁數51
期刊National Taiwan University Law Review
13
發行號1
DOIs
出版狀態已發佈 - 2018

指紋

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

引用此文

@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 -