Part I: A Prelude 1. The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany: A Survey Part II: Judicial Review and Democracy 2. Constitutional Adjudication in a Democratic System 3. Neither Indispensable Nor Contradictory. Constitutional Adjudication and Democracy Part III: Constitutional Adjudication: Law or Politics? 4. What Exactly is Political about Constitutional Adjudication? 5. Law or Politics? The Kelsen-Schmitt Controversy Over Constitutional Adjudication and the Current Situation Part IV: The Process: Constitutional Interpretation 6. Constitutions, Constitutional Courts and Constitutional Interpretation at the Interface of Law and Politics 7. On the Relationship between Interpretation Theory, Constitutional Adjudication and the Democracy Principle in Kelsen 8. Habermas on Constitutional Jurisprudence 9. Behind the Scenes: The Genesis of the Elfes Judgment 10. Constitutional Jurisprudence and Constitutional Scholarship Part V: Institutional Questions 11. Problems Relating to the System of Specialised Constitutional Courts in Germany 12. On the Relationship between the Federal Constitutional Court and Ordinary Courts Part VI: Europe: Competing Courts 13. The Role of National Constitutional Courts in European Democracy 14. A Long Time Coming Part VII: Opponents 15. New Radical Criticism of Constitutional Adjudication.

This collection of essays from Dieter Grimm, Germany's most renowned constitutional scholar, shines a light on the jurisprudence of the German Constitutional Court and constitutional adjudication in general. Established in 1951, the court has become a blueprint for new courts ever since and its jurisprudence, particularly in the field of fundamental rights, has influenced the decisions of judges throughout the world. After the seismic constitutional changes of the years 1989-90 in Germany and beyond, many countries adopted new democratic constitutions and established constitutional courts in order to make their constitutions effective. Today, many of these courts are under attack both politically and intellectually. In this book, Grimm considers some of the fundamental questions under academic scrutiny today: are constitutional courts political or legal institutions? Is judicial review a political or a legal activity? Is it a threat to, or a condition, of democracy? Should these courts be abolished or strengthened? Is a rational interpretation of constitutional law possible? The essays provide answers to these questions and describe how constitutional courts work if they properly fulfill their function of enforcing the constitution. A special emphasis is put on the importance of constitutional interpretation: something, the author argues, that most critics of constitutional adjudication neglect.
=532 0\$aCompliant with Level AA of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. Content is displayed as HTML full text which can easily be resized or read with assistive technology, with mark-up that allows screen readers and keyboard-only users to navigate easily.