In the Name of Comparative Constitutional Jurisprudence: The Consideration of German Precedents by South African Constitutional Court Judges

Abstract

Judges involved in constitutional adjudication often engage in comparative analyses of foreign cases. The judges of South Africa's Constitutional Court [hereinafter Constitutional Court] do so, too. The phenomenon has been given many names such as “transjudicialism,” “transjudicial communication,” “constitutionalist dialogue,” “judicial globalization,” “constitutional cross-fertilization,” “transnational contextualization,” “globalization of judgment,” “globalization of national courts,” “constitutional borrowing,” “constitutional comparativism,” and “judicial comparativism.” All these terms have merit, especially within their appropriate context, but for the purposes of this contribution we will use the term “comparative constitutional jurisprudence” to name the phenomenon we wish to describe and discuss. First, in the South African context, the terms “dialogue,” “cross-fertilization,” and “globalization” do not reflect the true nature of the exercises in drawing comparisons in the South African Constitutional Court. These terms imply a reciprocal dialogue between two or more courts from different jurisdictions. It is evident, however, that the South African Constitutional Court has been considering far more foreign jurisprudence than any non-South African constitutional court has been considering South African jurisprudence—in other words, this has largely been a case of one-way traffic.S v. Makwanyane, in many ways the inaugural decision of the Constitutional Court, contains 220 foreign case citations from 11 countries and three supranational courts. To our knowledge no other foreign court can boast a comparable statistic.