Proportionality

Barak, A. (2012). Proportionality: Constitutional Rights and Their Limitations. Cambridge University Press.

Type

Book

Intellectual base

Review or monograph

Year

2012

DOI

10.1017/cbo9781139035293

ISBN

9781107401198

Link

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139035293

Cited from

law_governance

Cited by

4 citations across 2 artifacts.

Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.

Primes

• Proportionality
  • (4) are the means appropriately balanced against the rights infringed?

    This sourceCanonical doctrinal account of the four-step proportionality test (proper purpose, rational connection, necessity, balancing) across constitutional jurisdictions worldwide.

  • The principle typically manifests as a four-step test, as canonized by Barak (2012): (1) is the aim legitimate?

    This sourceDetailed treatment of pretextuality and the strategic-misrepresentation risk in the legitimate-aim prong; pretextual purposes invalidate proportionality assessment.

  • The legitimacy prong is most vulnerable to strategic misrepresentation, a pretextuality risk Barak (2012) treats at length within the proper-purpose stage of proportionality analysis.

    This sourceOperationalizes the third stage of the four-step test as least-restrictive-means analysis with hierarchy of restrictiveness.

Mechanisms

• Influence-Response Decision Tree
  • It operationalizes the governing principle that a response should match the severity of what it answers

Verification

This reference passed the adversarial substantiation pipeline: it was checked to exist and to support the claim it is attached to. See how references were verified.

Registry ID ref:0c447a466f09 · see in the full table