1 See Barak, Aharon, Proportionality–Constitutional Rights and Their Limitations 181–210 (2012).Google Scholar

2 See Schlink, Bernhard, Abwägung Im Verfassungsrecht 134–35 (1976); T. Alexander Aleinikoff, Constitutional Law in the Age of Balancing, 96 Yale L.J. 943, 972–76 (1987); Jürgen Habermas, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of law and Democracy 259 (1996); Ralph Christensen & Andreas Fischer-Lescano, Das Ganze des Rechts—Vom Hierarchischen zum reflexiven Verständnis deutscher und europäischer Grundrechte 357 (2007); Tavros Tsakyrakis, Proportionality: An assault on human rights?, 7 Int'l J. Const. L. 468, 474 (2009); Grégoire C.N. Webber, The Negotiable Constitution 92–93 (2009).Google Scholar

3 See Bendix Autolite Corp. v. Midwesco Enter., Inc., 486 U.S. 888, 897 (1988).Google Scholar

4 See Sweet, Alec Stone & Mathews, Jud, Proportionality Balancing and Global Constitutionalism, 47 Col. J. Transnat'l L. 73, 88 (2008); see also Wojciech Sadurski, Reasonableness and Value Pluralism in Law and Politics, in Reasonableness and Law 129, 140 (Giorgio Bongiovanni, Giovanni Sartor & Chiara Valentini eds., 2009).Google Scholar

5 See Alexy, Robert, A Theory of Constitutional Rights 66–69 (2002).Google Scholar

6 Alexy, Robert, On Balancing and Subsumption. A Structural Comparison, 16 Ratio Juris 433, 435 (2003).Google Scholar

7 Id. at 443–48; Robert Alexy, Balancing, constitutional review, and representation, 3 Int'l J. Const. L. 572, 575 (2005).Google Scholar

8 Alexy, , supra note 6, at 446.Google Scholar

9 See id. at 444.Google Scholar

10 See Alexy, , supra note 7, at 576–77.Google Scholar

11 See Schlink, , supra note 2.Google Scholar

12 See id. at 136.Google Scholar

13 See Chang, Ruth, Introduction, in Incommensurability, Incomparability, and Practical Reason 1, 6 (Ruth Chang ed., 1997).Google Scholar

14 See Schneider, Harald, Die Güterabwägung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts bei Grundrechtskonflikten. Empirische Studie zu Methode und Kritik eines Konfliktlösungsmodelles 221–39 (1979); see also Nils Jansen, Die Abwägung von Grundrechten, 36 Der Staat 27, 46–53 (1997).Google Scholar

15 See Alexy, , supra note 5, at 99 (referring explicitly to Schlink).Google Scholar

16 See Schlink, , supra note 2, at 136–37; Davor Susnjar, Proportionality, Fundamental Rights, and Balance of Powers 206–11 (2010).Google Scholar

17 See Paul-Erik N. Veel, Incommensurability, Proportionality, and Rational Legal Decision-Making, 4 L. & Eth. Hum. Rts. 177 (2010); See also Christoph Engel, Besonderes Verwaltungsrecht und ökonomische Theorie 16–18 (Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Preprint No. 2011/2, 2011).Google Scholar

18 See Veel, , supra note 17.Google Scholar

19 See Nash, John Forbes, The Bargaining Problem, 18 Econometrica 155 (1950).Google Scholar

20 See Veel, , supra note 17, at 199.Google Scholar

21 See id. at 200.Google Scholar

22 See Engel, , supra note 17, at 16–18.Google Scholar

23 See id. at 16.Google Scholar

24 See id. at 17.Google Scholar

25 See id. Google Scholar

26 See Veel, , supra note 17, at 210–213.Google Scholar

27 See Barak, , supra note 1, at 364 (arguing expressly that competing constitutional values may have a different importance).Google Scholar

28 See generally Otto-Preminger-Institut v. Austria, ECHR App. No. 13470/87, 295 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1994).Google Scholar

29 Accord José Juan Moreso, Ways of Solving Conflicts of Constitutional Rights: Proportionalism and Specificationism, 25 Ratio Juris 31, 38 (2012).Google Scholar

30 Accord Porat, Iddo, Some Critical Thoughts on Proportionality, in Reasonableness and Law 243, 247 (Giorgio Bongiovanni, Giovanni Sartor & Chiara Valentini eds., 2009). See also Benjamin Rusteberg, Der Grundrechtliche Gewährleistungsgehalt 54–56 (2009), arguing that the determination of the degree of restriction of an individual right was still possible. Yet the author doubts that such an operation was possible for the enhancement of the public aim because a standard for the maximally possible achievement was missing.Google Scholar

31 Alexy, , supra note 7, at 576–77. One exception is probably David M. Beatty, The Ultimate Rule of Law 166 (2004), who argues that “proportionality offers judges a clear and objective test to distinguish coercive action by the state that is legitimate from that which is not” and claims that proportionality is all about sticking to the facts without involving any normative evaluation (emphasis added).Google Scholar

32 Alexy, , supra note 6; Aharon Barak, Proportional Effect: The Israeli Experience, 57 U. Toronto L.J. 369, 382 (2007).Google Scholar

33 Schlink, , supra note 2, at 158–72.Google Scholar

34 Aleinikoff, , supra note 2, at 973.Google Scholar

35 Schlink, Bernhard, Der Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit, in Festschrift 50 Jahre Bundesverfassungsgericht. Klärung und Fortbildung des Verfassungsrechts 445, 461 (Peter Badura & Horst Dreier eds., 2001); Webber, supra note 2, at 147–48.Google Scholar

36 Schlink, , supra note 2, at 211.Google Scholar

37 Ely, John Hart, Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review 135 (1980).Google Scholar

38 See Olson, Mancur, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (1965).Google Scholar

39 See Ely, , supra note 37, at 105–79; Samuel Issacharoff & Richard H. Pildes, Politics As Markets: Partisan Lockups of the Democratic Process, 50 Stan. L. Rev. 643 (1998); Ian Shapiro, The State of Democratic Theory 73–77 (2006); Samuel Issacharoff, Constitutional Courts and Democratic Hedging, 99 Geo. L.J. 961 (2010–2011).Google Scholar

40 Bernstorff, Jochen von, Proportionality without Balancing: Why Judicial ad hoc-balancing is Unnecessary and Potentially Detrimental to the Realization of Individual and Collective Self-Determination, in Reasoning Rights: Comparative Judicial Engagement (Liora Lazarus, Christopher McCrudden, Nigel Bowles eds., forthcoming 2014).Google Scholar

41 Schlink, , supra note 2, at 192–219; see also von Bernstorff, supra note 40.Google Scholar

42 Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 K.B. 223 (Eng.).Google Scholar

43 Schlink, , supra note 2, at 192–193.Google Scholar

44 Bernstorff, , supra note 40.Google Scholar

45 See infra, section D.Google Scholar

46 See R v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103 (Can.).Google Scholar

47 Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada 843 (2005).Google Scholar

48 Aaken, Anne van, “Rational Choice” in Der Rechtswissenschaft. Zum Stellenwert Der Ökonomischen Theorie Im Recht 329 (2003); Robert Alexy, Constitutional Rights, Balancing, and Rationality, 16 Ratio Juris 131, 135 (2003).Google Scholar

49 RJR-MacDonald v. Canada (Attorney General), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199 (Can.).Google Scholar

50 Id. ¶ 163.Google Scholar

51 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG – Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 1 BvR 542/62, 17 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [BVerfGE] 108 (July 25, 1963), http://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv017108.html.Google Scholar

52 Schlink, , supra note 2, at 206.Google Scholar

53 Arnauld, Andreas von, Die Freiheitsrechte und ihre Schranken 263–64 (1999). One way to mitigate this problem might, however, be the introduction of certain bright line rules as proposed by Bernstorff, supra note 40.Google Scholar

54 Weiler, Joseph H. H., Epilogue: Towards a Common Law of International Trade, in The EU, the WTO, and the NAFTA: Towards a Common Law of International Trade? 201, 222 (Joseph H. H. Weiler ed., 2000).Google Scholar

55 Rewe-Zentral AG v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein, CJEU Case 120/78, 1979 E.C.R. 649, para. 13.Google Scholar

56 Weiler, , supra note 54, at 223. See also Joseph H. H. Weiler, Brazil—Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres (DS32), 8 World Trade Rev. 137, 140 (2009) for a similar tendency of the WTO Appellate Body.Google Scholar

57 Sadurski, Wojciech, Rights Before Courts: A Study of Constitutional Courts in Postcommunist States of Central and Eastern Europe 269–70 (2005); Kai Möller, Proportionality: Challenging the critics, 10 Int'l J. Const. L. 709, 714 (2012).Google Scholar

58 See Saurer, Johannes, Die Globalisierung des Verhältnismäßigkeitsgrundsatzes, 51 Der Staat 3, 31 (2012).Google Scholar

59 Feldman, David, Proportionality and the Human Rights Act 1998, in The Principle of Proportionality in the Laws of Europe 117, 127 (Evelyn Ellis ed., 1999); Samantha Besson, The Reception Process in Ireland and the United Kingdom, in A Europe of Rights: The Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems 31, 83 (Helen Keller & Alec Stone Sweet eds., 2008).Google Scholar

60 Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 K.B. at 229.Google Scholar

61 Craig, Paul, Unreasonableness and Proportionality in UK Law, in The Principle of Proportionality in the Laws of Europe 85, 94 (Evelyn Ellis ed., 1999).Google Scholar

62 See Fordham, Michael & Thomas de la Mare, Identifying Principles of Proportionality, in Understanding Human Rights Principles 27, 65 (Jeffrey Jowell & Jonathan Cooper eds., 2001).Google Scholar

63 On the ‘heightened Wednesbury test’ see Aileen Kavanagh, Constitutional Review under the UK Human Rights Act 249 (2009).Google Scholar

64 R. v. Ministry of Defence, ex parte Smith [1996] Q.B. 517, 547 (Eng.).Google Scholar

65 Regina (Daly) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] 2 A.C. 532.Google Scholar

66 Id., at 543.Google Scholar

67 Craig, , supra note 61, at 95.Google Scholar

68 Gráinne de Búrca, Proportionality and Wednesbury Unreasonableness: The Influence of European Legal Concepts on UK Law, 3 Eur. Publ. L. 561, 573 (1997); Kavanagh, supra note 63, at 246. But see Ian Leigh, The Standard of Judicial Review After the Human Rights Act, in Judicial Reasoning under the UK Human Rights Act 174, 202 (Helen Fenwick, Gavin Phillipson & Roger Masterman eds., 2007), claiming that the “battle” of the competing approaches is still raging.Google Scholar

69 Craig, , supra note 61, at 99; Barak, supra note 1, at 374.Google Scholar

70 See Dworkin, Ronald, Taking Rights Seriously 184–205 (1977); Habermas, supra note 2, at 259–61; Rusteberg, supra note 30; Tsakyrakis, supra note 2; Webber, supra note 2, at 116–46; Jochen von Bernstorff, Kerngehalte im Grund- und Menschenrechtsschutz (2011).Google Scholar

71 Dworkin, , supra note 70, at 184–205.Google Scholar

72 Habermas, , supra note 2, at 260.Google Scholar

73 Kumm, Mattias, Political Liberalism and the Structure of Rights: On the Place and Limits of the Proportionality Requirement, in Law, Rights and Discourse: The Legal Philosophy of Robert Alexy 131, 134 (George Pavlakos ed., 2007).Google Scholar

74 See Dworkin, , supra note 70, at 193; Habermas, supra note 2, at 260 (arguing that “[t]he prospect of utilitarian gains cannot justify preventing a man from doing what he has a right to do”).Google Scholar

75 Habermas, , supra note 2, at 259.Google Scholar

76 Id. at 261.Google Scholar

77 See Engel, Christoph, Inconsistency in the Law: In Search of a Balanced Norm, in Is There Value in Inconsistency? 221, 230 (Christoph Engel & Lorraine Daston eds., 2006).Google Scholar

78 Dworkin, , supra note 70, at 193.Google Scholar

79 Id. at 200.Google Scholar

80 François Du Bois, Rights trumped? Balancing in constitutional adjudication, 2004 Acta Juridica 155, 174 (2004).Google Scholar

81 Dworkin, , supra note 70, at 198.Google Scholar

82 Id. at 198–99.Google Scholar

83 Möllers, Christoph, Legalität, Legitimität und Legitimation des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, in Das entgrenzte Gericht 281, 342 (Matthias Jestaedt, Oliver Lepsius, Christoph Möllers & Christoph Schönberger eds., 2011).Google Scholar

84 Kumm, , supra note 73, at 153–164.Google Scholar

85 Accord Cserne, Péter, Consequence-Based Arguments in Legal Reasoning: A Jurisprudential Preface to Law & Economics, in Efficiency, Sustainability, and Justice to Future Generations 31, 41–44 (Klaus Mathis ed., 2011).Google Scholar

86 Nimmer, Melville B., The Right to Speak from Times to Time: First Amendment Theory Applied to Libel and Misapplied to Privacy, 56 Cal. L. Rev. 935, 942 (1968); Moreso, supra note 29, at 39–43.Google Scholar

87 See Moreso, , supra note 29, at 42 (arguing that “moral principles should be formulated including their defeaters”).Google Scholar

88 Nimmer, , supra note 86, at 936–37; Frederick Schauer, A Comment on the Structure of Rights, 27 Ga. L. Rev. 415, 417 (1993).Google Scholar

89 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).Google Scholar

90 Id. at 279–80.Google Scholar

91 Id. at 379.Google Scholar

92 Nimmer, , supra note 86, at 943.Google Scholar

93 Id. Google Scholar

94 Schauer, Frederick, Freedom of Expression Adjudication in Europe and the United States: A Case Study in Comparative Constitutional Architecture, in European and US Constitutionalism 49, 58 (Georg Nolte ed., 2005).Google Scholar

95 Aleinikoff, , supra note 2, at 979–980.Google Scholar

96 Koskenniemi, Martti, From Apology to Utopia 591 (2005).Google Scholar

97 Rusteberg, , supra note 30, at 64–76; Webber, supra note 2, at 110–14; Jochen von Bernstorff, Kerngehaltsschutz durch den UN-Menschenrechtsausschuss und den EGMR: Vom Wert kategorialer Argumentationsformen, 50 Der Staat 165, 184–90 (2011); von Bernstorff, supra note 40.Google Scholar

98 Rusteberg, , supra note 30, at 69–70; Webber, supra note 2, at 110–111; von Bernstorff, supra note 97, at 189; Moreso, supra note 29, at 38.Google Scholar

99 Bernstorff, Von, supra note 97.Google Scholar

100 Bernstorff, Von, supra note 97, at 184; similarly Christensen & Fischer-Lescano, supra note 2, at 360; Friedrich Müller & Ralph Christensen, Juristische Methodik. Band I: Grundlegung Für Die Arbeitsmethoden Der Rechtspraxis 110 (10th ed. 2009).Google Scholar

101 Bernstorff, Von, supra note 97, at 187.Google Scholar

102 See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfGE - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 1 BvR 596/56, 7 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [BVerfGE] 377, 405–08 (June 11, 1958), http://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv007377.html.Google Scholar

103 See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfGE - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 1 BvL 19/63, 27 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [BVerfGE] 1, 6–7 (July 16, 1969), http://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv027001.html; Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfGE - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 28/71, 32 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [BVerfGE] 373, 378–79 (Mar. 8, 1972), http://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv032373.html; Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfGE - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvL 7/71, 33 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [BVerfGE] 367, 376–77 (July 19, 1972), http://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv033367.html.Google Scholar

104 See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfGE - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 1 BvR 596/56, 7 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [BVerfGE] 377, 405–08 (June 11, 1958), http://www.servat.unibe.ch/dfr/bv007377.html‥Google Scholar

105 Id. at 406.Google Scholar

106 Id. at 407.Google Scholar

107 Id. at 408 (“im allgemeinen wird nur die Abwehr nachweisbarer oder höchstwahrscheinlicher schwerer Gefahren für ein überragend wichtiges Gemeinschaftsgut diesen Eingriff … legitimieren können”).Google Scholar

108 Pieroth, Bodo & Schlink, Bernhard, Grundrechte – Staatsrecht II, 922 (27th ed. 2011).Google Scholar

109 Wieland, Joachim, Art. 12, in Grundgesetz-Kommentar 111 (Horst Dreier ed., 2d ed. 2004).Google Scholar

110 Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905).Google Scholar

111 Fallon, Richard H., Strict Judicial Scrutiny, 54 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 1267, 1287 (2007).Google Scholar

112 See, e.g., Olsen v. Nebraska ex rel. Western Reference & Bond Association, 313 U.S. 236, 246 (“We are not concerned, however, with the wisdom, need, or appropriateness of the legislation. Differences of opinion on that score suggest a choice which ‘should be left where it was left by the Constitution—to the states and to Congress”).Google Scholar

113 Fallon, , supra note 111, at 1270. See, Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599, 612 (1961) (Brennan J. concurring and dissenting) (“The right of a state to regulate … may well include … power to impose all of the restrictions which a legislature may have a ‘rational basis’ for adopting.”). “But freedoms of speech and of press, of assembly, and of worship, may not be infringed on such slender grounds. They are susceptible of restriction only to prevent grave and immediate danger to interests which the state may lawfully protect.” Id. Google Scholar

114 See NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 438 (1963); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 406 (1963); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 634, 638 (1969). On the history of the emergence of the compelling state interest standard see Stephen A. Siegel, The Origin of the Compelling State Interest Test and Strict Scrutiny, 48 Am. J. Legal Hist. 355, 361–92 (2006).Google Scholar

115 Fallon, , supra note 111, at 1298.Google Scholar

116 Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 197 (1976).Google Scholar

117 Barak, , supra note 1, at 512. But see also Schauer, supra note 88, at 430–31, who criticizes the consequentialist reading of the tiered system of review using the metaphor of different rights as armors of different strengths:Google Scholar

118 Siegel, , supra note 114, at 393–94. See also Fallon, supra note 111, at 1302–15, who identifies three categories, the third being a nearly categorical prohibition (see id. 1303–05).Google Scholar

119 Ely, , supra note 37, at 145–48; Siegel, supra note 114, at 393; Fallon, supra note 111, at 1308–11. See also Richard H. Pildes, Why Rights Are Not Trumps: Social Meanings, Expressive Harms, and Constitutionalism, 27 J. Legal Stud. 725 (1998) (arguing that this search for illicit motives should be the core of individual rights review).Google Scholar

120 Siegel, , supra note 114, at 394; Fallon, supra note 111, at 1306–08; Jud Mathews & Alec Stone Sweet, All Things in Proportion? American Rights Review and the Problem of Balancing, 60 Emory L.J. 102, 116 (2011). See also Adam Winkler, Fatal in Theory and Strict in Fact: An Empirical Analysis of Strict Scrutiny in the Federal Courts, 59 Vand. L. Rev. 793, 813 (2006) (making the empirical observation that the application of strict scrutiny does not automatically lead to the unconstitutionality of the state measure).Google Scholar

121 Sullivan, E. Thomas & Frase, Richard S., Proportionality Principles in American Law. Controlling Excessive Government Actions (2009); Mathews & Stone Sweet, supra note 120.Google Scholar

122 See Kumm, , supra note 73, at 153–64.Google Scholar

123 Schauer, , supra note 94, at 64.Google Scholar

124 Sweet, Stone & Mathews, , supra note 4, at 161–62.Google Scholar

125 Cf. Kleinlein, Thomas, Judicial Lawmaking by Judicial Restraint? The Potential of Balancing in International Economic Law, 12 German L. J. 1141, 1167 (2011) (“The more rational judicial balancing is, the less problematic its justification is.”).Google Scholar

126 Accord Mathews, & Sweet, Stone, supra note 120, at 122 (arguing that the hostility toward judicial balancing is often paired with a suspicion of judicial law making).Google Scholar

127 See Schauer, Frederick, Balancing, Subsumption, and the Constraining Role of Legal Text, in Institutional Reason: The Jurisprudence of Robert Alexy 307, 310 (Matthias Klatt ed., 2011) (“When critics like Habermas accuse the balancing process of being irrational, however, it appears that what they really mean is unconstrained.“).Google Scholar

128 Courts can also exercise considerable political power using formalist or categorical approaches, cf. Cohen-Eliya & Porat, supra note 2, 279–80 (discussing Lochner); Niels Petersen, Völkerrecht und Gewaltenteilung – Die aktuelle Rechtsprechung des U.S. Supreme Court zur innerstaatlichen Wirkung von völkerrechtlichen Verträgen, in Völkerrecht im innerstaatlichen Bereich 49, 63 (Christina Binder, Claudia Fuchs, Matthias Goldmann, Thomas Kleinlein & Konrad Lachmeyer eds., 2010) (discussing Medellín).Google Scholar