John C. Reitz

Constitutional dialogues in comparative perspective

Foreword by J.H.H.Weiler Introduction: Constitutional Dialogues in Comparative Perspective S.J.Kenney, W.M.Reisinger and J.C.Reitz Constitutional Dialogues: Protecting Rights in France, Germany, Italy and Spain A.S.Sweet Experimental Constitutionalism: A Comparative Analysis of the Institutional Bases of Rights Enforcement in Postcommunist Hungary J.Seitzer Political Economy and Abstract Review in Germany, France and the United States J.C.Reitz A Comparative Study of the Constitutional Protection of Hate Speech in Canada and the United States: A Search for Explanations W.G.Buss Intercultural Citizenship: Statutory Interpretation and Belonging in Britain S.Sterett The Judges of the Court of Justice of the European Communities S.J.Kenney Legal Orientations and the Rule of Law in Post-Soviet Russia W.M.Reisinger The Success of Judicial Review M.Shapiro Cases and Official Documents Cited Books, Articles and Chapters Cited

Introduction: Constitutional Dialogues in Comparative Perspective

Today, at the end of the twentieth century, it is scarcely possible to recount, much less understand, the major political and social developments in industrial societies without attention to legal norms, courts and judges. The number of countries with judicial review of legislation jumped sharply in the aftermath of the Second World War and again following the end of communist rule in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Judicial review of administrative acts is also being significantly strengthened in many countries that long rejected or restricted it. Especially in Western Europe, transnational courts add another dimension of legal norms that can influence social life. Increasingly, scholars are coming to view courts as political actors and to argue that judges, their modes of arguing, the type of evidence they require, even their partisan policy preferences, influence lawmakers and administrative agencies.

Recognition of Foreign Administrative Acts in the United States

The legal rules governing recognition in the United States of foreign administrative acts vary sharply depending on whether the foreign administrative act in question is covered by a mutual recognition agreement (MRA), which seeks to eliminate duplicative assessments in international trade of conformity of goods and services with applicable product and service standards, or similar treaties. Such agreements and their implementing legislation and regulation give a clear legal basis for recognition to the extent that they cover foreign administrative acts though in fact many do not. Otherwise, recognition is based on the common law, which provides for recognition--chiefly enforcement of money judgments or collateral estoppel on common issues, but excluding fines and penalties--in order to avoid duplicative litigation in situations in which there has already been a full and fair opportunity to litigate all relevant issues in connection with the issuance of the foreign administrative act. The common law is subject to exceptions to protect crucial U.S. public policies, but the act of state doctrine extends the scope of administrative acts that may be granted recognition in the United States by eliminating the defense of public policy in certain cases.