Home > Journals > Michigan Law Review > MLR > Volume 101 > Issue 8 (2003)
In this Article, I explore the question of why constitutional review, but not American judicial review, spread across Europe. I will also argue that, despite obvious organic differences between the American and European systems of review, there is an increasing convergence in how review actually operates. I proceed as follows. In Part I, I examine the debate on establishing judicial review in Europe, focusing on the French. In Parts II and III, I contrast the European and the American models of review, and briefly discuss why the Kelsenian constitutional court diffused across Europe. In Part IV, I argue that despite important formal, institutional distinctions, there is increasing convergence in how the two systems of review actually operate.
Alec S. Sweet,
Why Europe Rejected American Judicial Review - And Why It May Not Matter,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol101/iss8/8
Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Judges Commons, Legal History Commons