Fernández Segado, F. (2004). La faillite de la bipolarite “modele americain-modele europeen” en tant que critere analytique du controle de la constitutionnalite et la recherche d’une nouvelle typologie explicative. In Melanges en l’honneur de Franck Moderne (p. 1108). Paris: Dalloz.

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE: Dynamic Reflections on Constitutional Justice

  AUTHORS: Roberto Scarciglia

  KEYWORDS: Constitutional Justice, Judicial Opinions, Neuroscience and Law

  JOURNAL NAME: Beijing Law Review, Vol.5 No.2, June 23, 2014

  ABSTRACT: This article attempts to propose critical reflections on “historical” models of Constitutional Review. The gradual depletion of the simplified classification system of constitutional review has been identified, by some scholars, as a failure of the bipolar American-European model. This means that it is necessary to rethink the approach to analysing constitutional review, in light of legal traditions, positive law within legal systems, and comparative methodologies. Consequently, judicial review could be studied according to the internal perspectives of the Supreme and Constitutional Courts’ decision-making processes, rather than externally observable legal characteristics. As of recently, legal studies have been converging with other sciences, such as cognitive science. They have been considering the relationship between consciousness and comparison, and even the field of cognitive errors in judgment, and the development of decisions taken by Courts.