Balancing, Proportionality, and Constitutional Rights

In the theory and practice of constitutional adjudication, proportionality review plays a crucial role. At a theoretical level, it lies at core of the debate on rights adjudication; in judicial practice, it is a widespread decision-making model characterizing the action of constitutional, supra-national and international courts. Despite its circulation and centrality in contemporary legal discourse, proportionality in rights-adjudication is still extremely controversial. It raises normative questions—concerning its justification and limits—and descriptive questions—regarding its nature and distinctive features. The chapter addresses both orders of questions. Part I centres on the justification of proportionality review, the connection between proportionality, balancing and theories of rights and the critical aspects of this connection. Part II identifies and analyses the different forms of proportionality both in review, as a template for rights-adjudication, and of review, as a way of defining the scope and limits of adjudication

Learning from various plants and scenarios: Statistical modeling.

Experimental approaches studying complex phenomena in nature often show various answers to one question, depending on the experimental scale chosen, the experimental set-up and other types of restrictions chosen along the way. This difficulty does not only result from a lack of experimental technology, but also from our reductionist approach. While having been shown to be very powerful in experimental sciences, the approach also faces limitations dealing with complex systems. Being aware of such difficulties, statistical methodology has to provide answers for various levels of contingency. We discuss some of these questions and look at examples of statistical methods according to their power in addressing questions raised from complexity