Archetypes of Judicial Review

This paper critiques the absence of a framework in CCL to assess the legitimacy of judicial review. There have been several attempts to tell a history of judicial review from its origin in the US to its spread worldwide. These accounts have a ‘lumping’ tendency and appear to suggest that the judicial role has remained unchanged over time. ‘Splitters’ have pierced this narrative only to some extent – they argue that institutions of judicial review differ across jurisdictions (concrete v. abstract) or that differences in judicial review are dependent only on the political context. However, there is little discussion of how and why judicial legitimacy differs across jurisdictions. This paper aims to fill this gap – I devise archetypes of JR usually found across jurisdictions based on how one settles the question of democracy vs. rights. I will then provide the constituent elements of these different archetypes which can be used to identify which jurisdiction adopts which model of JL.