Responsive Judicial Review and Multipolar Constitutional Theories

Wheatle, Se-shauna

Abstract

Dixon’s exposition of modern democratic dysfunction and responsive judging arrives at an opportune time, in which both newer and more established democracies are experiencing considerable challenges to their democratic norms and structures.1 Dixon contributes to the growing literature on this topic by offering a careful definition and catalogue of the ills plaguing modern democracies alongside reflections on the legitimacy and effectiveness of institutional responses. In particular, the book approaches the issues of the legitimacy of judicial review and the practical application of responsive judicial review with remarkable comparative breadth. I will begin this brief article by outlining and assessing the core arguments of the book. Next, I will situate the book within commentary that proposes a ‘multipolar’ vision of the constitution—neither legal nor political, neither juristocracy nor exclusively majoritarian. I end by drawing on a UK case study—the UK Supreme Court decision in R (Miller) v Prime Minister; Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland2—that reflects the operation of responsive review (and multipolar constitutionalism, in general) in action.

Citation

Wheatle, S. (2022). Responsive Judicial Review and Multipolar Constitutional Theories. National Law School of India Review, 34(2), 94-103

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Publication Date: 2022
• Deposit Date: Apr 12, 2023
• Publicly Available Date: Jun 22, 2023
• Journal: National Law School of India Review
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 34
• Issue: 2
• Article Number: 11
• Pages: 94-103
• Public URL: https://durham-repository.worktribe.com/output/1176569
• Publisher URL: https://repository.nls.ac.in/nlsir/vol34/iss2/11/
• Related Public URLs: https://repository.nls.ac.in/nlsir/vol34/iss2/11/