| Limiti ai diritti e clausole orizzontali: Canada, Nuova Zelanda, Israele e Sudafrica a confronto |
| Fascicolo 2002-2 |
| Scritto da Rosa Francesca |
|
Sommario 1. Introduzione. – 2. La Carta dei diritti e delle libertà canadese: una lettura in combinato disposto della justified limitation clause e della notwithstanding clause. – 3. Il giudice neozelandese fra sovranità del Parlamento ed effettività dei diritti. – 4. Le leggi fondamentali Freedom of Occupation e Human Dignity and Liberty e la difficile definizione dei valori di uno Stato ebraico e democratico. – 5. La Costituzione sudafricana e la “positivizzazione” del test di bilanciamento. – 6. Considerazioni conclusive.
Abstract The bills of rights of Canada, New Zealand, Israel and South Africa provide for a justified limitaton clause which grants to law the power to impose limits to the exercise and to the enjoyiment of rights. Such limits have to be reasonable and justified both in a free and democratic society (Canada and New Zealand) and in an open and democratic one, based on human dignity, equality and freedom (South Africa), and befitting the values of the State, in Israel. The consequences produced by such clauses vary according to two factors: the position held by the bill of rights in the system of sources and the determination of the parameter chosen for the balancing. The justified limitation clauses have contributed to redefine the relationships between judges and the Parliament, the day after an institutional shift by which the status quo ante has been broken or changed. These dispositions, in fact, recognize to the representative body the power to limit the rights of freedom by means of law but, in imposing counterlimits to the legislators, they also lead judges to redefine the range and limits of such a power. |