Judicial supremacy or inter-institutional dialogue? Political responses to judicial review

When

9.00am–5.15pm

18 May 2010 - 19 May 2010

Topics

Politics

Prominent legal scholars from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the US convened to discuss a set of commissioned papers that examine the divergent forms of judicial review and the political consequences of judicial review decisions.

The development of new models of judicial review in new places demands empirical analyses that specify and elaborate the role of history, culture, and politics in the actual practice of judicial review. This workshop addressed various questions, including: How is judicial review institutionalised in different settings? What are the political effects of judicial review decisions?

Mark Tushnet, Harvard Law School, delivered an opening address, followed by a series of country-specific panels. Participants included: Mark Graber (University of Maryland); Sanford Levinson (University of Texas - Austin); Brian Galligan & Adrienne Stone (University of Melbourne); Helen Irving, (Sydney Law School); Janet Hiebert (Queen’s University); Rainer Knopff & Dave Snow (University of Calgary); Petra Butler (Victoria University of Wellington); Paul Rishworth (University of Auckland). Rhonda Evans Case (East Carolina University), will serve as moderator.

This event was presented by the Sydney Law School, the US Studies Centre, and the Clark Centre for Australian & New Zealand Studies at the University of Texas, Austin.