often against a background of different rules and traditions. The law must be developed coherently, in accordance with principle, so as to serve, even-handedly, the ends of justice. If, however, a decision is given in this country which offends basic sense of justice, and if consideration of international sources suggests one’s that a different and more acceptable decision would be given in most other jurisdictions, whatever their legal tradition, this must prompt anxious review of the decision in question.[/quotation] In the Supreme Court of the United States, Justice Kennedy addressed similar issues in The case concerned a very different matter and area of law. Roper v Simmons. But the criteria were not that different. Justice Kennedy states that international and comparative law provides and for the ‘respected significant confirmation’ majority’s view while not controlling the outcome: [quotation]It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty, resting in large part on the understanding that the instability and emotional imbalance of young people may often be a factor in the crime. See Brief for Human Rights Committee of the Bar of England and Wales et al. as 10–11. The opinion of the world Amici Curiae community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions. It does not lessen our fidelity to the Constitution or our pride in its origins to acknowledge that the express affirmation of certain fundamental rights by other nations and peoples simply underscores the centrality of those same rights within our own heritage of freedom.[/quotation]
often against a background of different rules and traditions. The law must be developed coherently, in accordance with principle, so as to serve, even-handedly, the ends of justice. If, however, a decision is given in this country which offends one’s basic sense of justice, and if consideration of international sources suggests that a different and more acceptable decision would be given in most other jurisdictions, whatever their legal tradition, this must prompt anxious review of the decision in question.[/quotation] In the Supreme Court of the United States, Justice Kennedy addressed similar issues in Roper v Simmons. The case concerned a very different matter and area of law. But the criteria were not that different. Justice Kennedy states that international and comparative law provides ‘respected and significant confirmation’ for the majority’s view while not controlling the outcome: [quotation]It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty, resting in large part on the understanding that the instability and emotional imbalance of young people may often be a factor in the crime. See Brief for Human Rights Committee of the Bar of England and Wales et al. as Amici Curiae 10–11. The opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions. It does not lessen our fidelity to the Constitution or our pride in its origins to acknowledge that the express affirmation of certain fundamental rights by other nations and peoples simply underscores the centrality of those same rights within our own heritage of freedom.[/quotation]
02_andenas_clean-monateri-comparative-law.docx