English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This article aims to analyse the phenomenon of the diffusion of interpretive paradigms or argumentation models between constitutional courts. This phenomenon involves the importation of parameters - defined here as extra-systemic to a specific legal system - and the use of the comparative method in applying constitutional texts. The main subject of this study is the analysis of the first 11 years of South African constitutional jurisprudence, which is a convenient scenario since a constitutional provision enables the Constitutional Court to 'consider foreign law' when interpreting the Bill of Rights. In fact, this led to the wide use of foreign jurisprudence and legislation (from which were extracted argumentation models, patterns of balancing between principles and sometimes actual normative 'meanings'): in other words, extra-systemic legal inferences. This article shows the existence of several patterns of legal argumentation based on foreign law which were developed by the South African Constitutional Court.

The South African Constitutional Court Experience: Reasoning Patterns Based on Foreign Law