Italian Constitution And Foreign Law

Summary

Article 2 of the Italian Constitution highlights a commitment to universal human rights, suggesting openness to foreign law. Comparative law aids Italian courts by providing diverse perspectives and solutions for issues concerning inviolable rights. Fredman emphasizes the deliberative use of comparative law, where judges consider various perspectives to enhance judicial reasoning and accountability. This approach is convincing as it ensures well-reasoned, transparent decisions, reducing subjective bias in complex human rights cases.

Full Conversation

Consider the following: “It is argued in this book that the main function of the use of comparative law is deliberative. Judges making decisions on complex issues of human rights law need to adopt a reasoning process which is thorough and persuasive. Judicial accountability depends centrally on the quality of the reasons adduced. In contested human rights cases, there can be no single right answer; but the suspicion that judges are imposing their own subjective beliefs can only be dispelled by reasoning which is capable of being persuasive and openly canvasses a range of alternative solutions. Comparative materials constitute an important contribution to the rigour of this process, particularly with respect to canvassing alternative solutions.” - Sandra Fredman
It seems like you're interested in the role of comparative law in judicial decision-making, particularly in the context of human rights. Comparative law indeed plays a significant role in enhancing judicial reasoning by introducing diverse perspectives and solutions.
Do you have a specific case or legal issue related to human rights where you think comparative law could be particularly useful?
What does Fredman mean by the deliberative use of comparative law? Do you think this is a convincing reason to engage in comparative law?
Fredman means that the deliberative use of comparative law involves judges considering and reasoning through various perspectives and solutions from different jurisdictions to make their decisions more thorough and persuasive, particularly in complex human rights cases. This process enhances judicial accountability by ensuring that judges' decisions are well-reasoned and transparent, reducing the perception of subjective bias.
Yes, this is a convincing reason to engage in comparative law. It encourages a more comprehensive and balanced approach to judicial decision-making, which is crucial in upholding the integrity and fairness of the legal system.