Reasoning rights comparative judicial engagement

Includes bibliographical references and index.

The pluralism of human rights adjudication / Christopher McCrudden -- Constructing the proportionality test : an emerging global conversation / Kai Möller -- Necessity and proportionality : towards a balanced approach / David Bilchitz -- Proportionality without balancing : why judicial ad hoc balancing is unnecessary and potentially detrimental to the realisation of individual and collective self-determination / Jochen von Bernstorff -- Proportionality in United States constitutional law / Paul Yowell -- "To the serious detriment of the public" : secret evidence and closed material procedures / Ryan Goss -- National security law and the creep of secrecy : a transatlantic tale / Tom Hickman and Adam Tomkins -- Navigating the shoals of secrecy : a comparative analysis of the use of secret evidence and "cleared counsel" in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada / David Cole and Stephen I. Vladeck -- The secret keepers : judges, security detentions, and secret evidence / Shiri Krebs -- The intersection of religious autonomy and religious symbols : setting the stage / Christopher McCrudden and Brett G. Scharffs -- Principles and compromises : religious freedom in a time of transition / Carolyn Evans -- State interference in the internal affairs of religious institutions / Johan D. Van der Vyver -- The protection of religious freedom in Australia : a comparative assessment of autonomy and symbols / Paul Babie and James Krumrey-Quinn -- The emergence and enforcement of socio-economic rights / Murray Wesson -- The problematic of social rights : uniformity and diversity in the development of social rights review / Colm O'Cinneide -- A South African perspective on the judicial development of socio-economic rights / Edwin Cameron -- Judicial activism and the Indian Supreme Court : lessons for economic and social rights adjudication / Anashri Pillay -- American exceptionalism over social rights / Jeff King.

"This book is about judicial reasoning in human rights cases. The aim is explore the question: how is it that notionally universal norms are reasoned by courts in such significantly different ways?"--Page i.