Constitutional Convergence in East Asia

by Po Jen Yap, Chien-Chih Lin

Overview

This comparative study of the constitutional jurisprudence of three East Asian jurisdictions investigates how the rulings of the Constitutional Court of Taiwan, the Constitutional Court of Korea and the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal have converged. The unique political contexts of all three jurisdictions have led to strong courts using the structured proportionality doctrine and innovative constitutional remedies to address human rights issues. Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South Korea have the only courts in Asia that regularly use a structured four-stage Proportionality Analysis to invalidate laws, and routinely apply innovative constitutional remedies such as Suspension Orders and Remedial Interpretation to rectify constitutionally flawed legislation. This volume explores how judges in these areas are affected by politics within their different constitutional systems. The latest developments in Asian constitutional law are covered, with detailed analysis of key cases.

Product Details

ISBN-13:	9781108924832
Publisher:	Cambridge University Press
Publication date:	11/25/2021
Series:	Comparative Constitutional Law and Policy
Sold by:	Barnes & Noble
Format:	eBook
File size:	12 MB
Note:	This product may take a few minutes to download.

About the Author

Po Jen Yap is a Professor of Law at The University of Hong Kong. He is an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore and an Attorney at Law in the State of New York, USA. He is the author of Constitutional Dialogue in Common Law Asia (2015) and Courts and Democracies in Asia (2017).
Chien-Chih Lin is an Associate Research Professor at Institutum Iurisprudentiae, Academia Sinica (Taiwan). He has published in multiple law journals and edited volumes, including The Oxford Handbook of Constitutional Law in Asia, American Journal of Comparative Law, and International Journal of Constitutional Law. He is the book review editor of the International Journal of Constitutional Law.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction; 2. Reasons for convergence; 3. Convergence on structured proportionality; 4. Convergence on innovative constitutional remedies; 5. Limits on convergence; 6. Conclusion; Bibliography; Index.

Editorial Reviews

‘This book opens a new page for comparative constitutional study in Asia by providing an innovative political account for constitutional convergence as developed in Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan. It is a must-read for those who seek to understand institutional constraints of constitutional doctrines such as proportionality and constitutional remedies.’ Wen-Chen Chang, Dean of the National Chiao Tung University, School of Law; Professor of National Taiwan University, College of Law

‘In this important new work by two of Asia's leading scholars, Yap and Lin suggest that there are in fact significant similarities between the constitutional practice in Taiwan, South Korea and Hong Kong in the use of doctrines of structured proportionality and innovative judicial remedies. And they suggest a fascinating causal account for this convergence. Rather than engaging in a direct dialogue with each other, these jurisdictions are influenced by common ideas from beyond the region - i.e. German and Anglo-Canadian models as indirect pressures for regional convergence. The book is therefore a major contribution to our understanding both of Asian constitutionalism and models of constitutional borrowing and convergence more generally. It should be compulsory reading for anyone interested in these topics.’ Rosalind Dixon, Professor of Law, University of New South Wales

‘Linking politics and institutions to doctrine in an exemplary work of constitutional studies, Po Jen Yap and Chien-Chih Lin continue to make significant contributions to our understanding of constitutional law in East Asia by describing the ways in which constitutional courts in three major jurisdictions have accepted the doctrine of structured proportionality and developed an array of doctrinal tools to use when invalidating legislation.’ Mark Tushnet, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law, Emeritus; Harvard Law School

From the Publisher