Judicial Review: Laws, Process, and Human Rights Protection in Constitutional Democracies

The Concept of Judicial Review

The concept of judicial review was pioneered in the United States. Judicial review ensures that there are checks and balances between the three branches of government. Particularly, judicial “oversight” prevents the legislative and executive branches from enacting and enforcing laws that are unconstitutional. This is particularly important with respect to the protection of human rights. Although, all established constitutional democracies have some form of judicial review empowering the courts to rule on the constitutionality of their laws, the form varies from country to country.
For example, the Canadian Supreme Court’s cannot exercise judicial review with respect to a law that includes a provision explicitly prohibiting such review. In France, a Constitutional Council rules on the constitutionality of laws before they take effect. Laws can be referred to the council for prior review by the president, the prime minister, and the heads of the two chambers of parliament. Prior review is also an option in Germany and Italy, if requested by the national or a regional government. In contrast, the United States Supreme Court does not examine the constitutionality of U.S. laws unless there is an actual case before it in which the constitutionality of a specific law is at issue.
Assignment:
(1) Research judicial review in either: (1) the countries mentioned above or (2) any other country (Switzerland, Australia, Japan).
(2) In a minimum 250-word post, please:
(a) describe and discuss the laws/statutes/rules/court cases governing judicial review of your chosen country;
(b) describe the judicial review process;
(c) search for an example of judicial review protecting human rights. (If not, please search for an example from another country, e.g., the United States); and

(d) propose at least one action (not already implemented) that the country can take to better promote human rights.