Search

This paper seeks to understand modern comparative reflections on John Hart Ely’s work through Comparative Political Process Theory or Comparative Representation-Reinforcing Theory, and how such approaches can be augmented through the lens of therapeutic jurisprudence. It argues that the legitimacy of courts’ actions (or inactions) in such settings can be understood through their potential to strengthen democratic institutions rather than do them harm, acting as a re-set or recalibration of the democratic landscape. By buttressing representation-reinforcing approaches with therapeutic understandings, curial interventions designed to shift longstanding democratic impasses or blind spots are likely to carry much greater institutional legitimacy. By applying this lens to a series of case studies, the paper highlights the normative contribution that therapeutic jurisprudence can provide to representation-reinforcing action and to the design of such approaches.

Search Results

Refine search

Refine search

Actions for selected content:

1 results

Neo-Elyian theory, therapeutic jurisprudence and the constitutional judgment

Search Results

Refine search

Refine search

Actions for selected content:

Save Search

1 results

Neo-Elyian theory, therapeutic jurisprudence and the constitutional judgment