Abstract
The Utrecht Law Review is an open-access peer-reviewed journal which aims to offer an international academic platform for cross-border legal research. In the first place, this concerns research in which the boundaries of the classic branches of the law (private law, criminal law, constitutional and administrative law, European and public international law) are crossed and connections are made between these areas of the law, amongst others from a comparative law perspective. In addition, the journal welcomes research in which classic law is brought face to face with not strictly legal disciplines such as philosophy, economics, political sciences and public administration science.The journal was established in 2005 and is affiliated to the Utrecht University School of Law. If you wish to receive e-mail alerts please join the mailing list.
Highlights
‘Constitutional dialogue’ has rapidly become more important in processes of public decision-making.[1]
Due to a lack of any legal meaning constitutional dialogue often amounts to a convenient label suggesting ‘mutual learning and improvement’
As a reaction to the lack of clarity surrounding an increasingly popular concept, this paper aims to provide an overview of various strands of literature on constitutional dialogue as well as a practical guide to navigating this literature for scholars who are considering employing this concept in their research
Summary
‘Constitutional dialogue’ has rapidly become more important in processes of public decision-making.[1]. Due to a lack of any legal meaning constitutional dialogue often amounts to a convenient label suggesting ‘mutual learning and improvement’.5 Despite this popularity – or perhaps partly because of the easy appeal of the term – the academic and the practical legal community still appears to be unsure what qualifies as a ‘dialogue’ either in practice or in theory or what implications to attach to the qualification. ‘Constitutional Dialogue’: An Overview without further definition.[6] The employment of ‘constitutional dialogue’ in academic literature varies from casual uses as a metaphor to proclamations along the lines of the concept having become ‘part of mainstream discourse regarding the separation of powers’[7] and references to ‘constitutional dialogue theory’.8 These multiple modes of employment make it clear that the content and scope of ‘constitutional dialogue theory’ is not evident and needs further academic attention. In line with the theme of this special issue we provide some illustrations from current constitutional debates in the Netherlands.[11]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
