000			02276cam a2200385 i 4500
999			_c200435915 _d54127
001			200435915
003			TR-AnTOB
005			20231214110033.0
007			ta
008			160719m20182017enk b 001 0 eng
010			_a 2016032817
020			_a9781107175068 (hardback)
020			_a1316626814
040			_aDLC _beng _erda _cDLC _dTR-AnTOB
041	0		_aeng
042			_apcc
050	0	0	_aK247 _b.U73 2017
084			_aLAW052000 _2bisacsh
090			_aK247 _b.U73 2017
100	1		_aUrbina Molfino, Francisco Javier _eauthor _9124737
245	1	2	_aA critique of proportionality and balancing / _cFrancisco J. Urbina.
263			_a1611
264		1	_aCambridge [UK] ; _aNew York : _bCambridge University Press, _c2017.
300			_a267 pages ; _ccm
336			_atext _btxt _2rdacontent
337			_aunmediated _bn _2rdamedia
338			_avolume _bnc _2rdacarrier
505	8		_aMachine generated contents note: 1. Introduction; Part I: 2. The maximisation account of proportionality; 3. The incommensurability objection; 4. Why proportionality?; 5. Proportionality, rights, and legitimate interests; Part II: 6. Proportionality as unconstrained moral reasoning; 7. The need for legal direction in adjudication; 8. Proportionality and the problems of legally unaided adjudication; Part III: 9. Legal human rights.
520			_a"The principle of proportionality, which has become the standard test for adjudicating human and constitutional rights disputes in jurisdictions worldwide has had few critics. Proportionality is generally taken for granted or enthusiastically promoted or accepted with minor qualifications. A Critique of Proportionality and Balancing presents a frontal challenge to this orthodoxy. It provides a comprehensive critique of the proportionality principle, and particularly of its most characteristic component, balancing. Divided into three parts, the book presents arguments against the proportionality test, critiques the view of rights entailed by it, and proposes an alternative understanding of fundamental rights and their limits"-- _cProvided by publisher.
650		0	_aProportionality in law _993700
650		0	_aHuman rights _98986
942			_2lcc _cBK