Kemal Gözler, Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments:
A Comparative Study, Bursa, Ekin Press, 2008, XII+ 126 p.
[http://www.anayasa.gen.tr/jrca.htm]
(Dec. 20, 2008)
This monograph is an attempt to answer the following questions: Can constitutional courts review the constitutionality of constitutional amendments? If yes, to what extent? It is endeavored, in a comparative perspective, to answer these questions by examining the constitutions of several countries and the case law of the Austrian, German, Hungarian, Romanian, Slovenian and Turkish Constitutional Courts, French Constitutional Council, Indian, Irish, and the United States Supreme Courts.
SUMMARY OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1: Do Constitutional Courts Have Competence to Review Constitutional Amendments?
I. If There Is a Constitutional Provision Concerning the Question of Competence
A. The Constitutions Empowering the Constitutional Courts to Review Constitutional Amendments
B. The Constitution Expressly Prohibiting the Review of the Constitutional Amendments
II. If There is No Constitutional Provision Concerning the Question of Competence
A. The Competence of Courts to Rule on Constitutional Amendments under the American Model of Judicial Review
B. The Competence of Constitutional Courts to Rule on Constitutional Amendments under the European Model of Judicial Review
C. Can Constitutional Amendments Be Deemed to Be “Law” and Consequently Be Reviewed by Constitutional Courts?
Chapter 2: Can Constitutional Courts Review the Formal and Procedural Regularity of Constitutional Amendments?
I. The United States Supreme Court
II. Austrian Constitutional Court
III. Turkish Constitutional Court
Chapter 3: Can Constitutional Courts Review the Substance of Constitutional Amendments?
I. If There Are Substantive Limits in the Constitution, the Judicial Review of the Substance of Constitutional Amendments is Possible
A. German Constitutional Court
B. Turkish Constitutional Court
II. If There Are No Substantive Limits in the Constitution, the Judicial Review of the Substance of Constitutional Amendments is not Possible
A. The Arguments in Favor of the Existence of Implicit Substantive Limits
B. Case-Law of Constitutional Courts Rejecting the Existence of Implicit Substantive Limits
C. Case-Law of Constitutional Courts Accepting the Existence of Implicit Substantive Limits
[Books & articles that cite this book]
[Court decisions that cite this book.]
Kemal Gözler, Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments: A Comparative Study, Bursa, Ekin Press, 2008, XII+126 p.[http://www.anayasa.gen.tr/jrca.htm] (Dec. 20, 2008)
© Kemal Gözler, 2008. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be republished or redistributed, by any means, electronic or mechanical, without the prior written permission of the author. However you may print a single copy of this book solely for your personal, non-commercial use. You may also download and save this book on your hard drive to view it offline, for your own use.
Editor: Kemal Gözler
E-mail: kgozler[at]hotmail.com
Home: www.anayasa.gen.tr
(Dec. 20, 2008)
