Looking forward, not back: situating ex ante review in UK constitutionality

目前理解的合宪性评估颁布的法律是否符合宪法原则或事后编纂的宪法文本（埃利奥特，2001年）。这是一项司法任务（Black-Clawson International [1975] AC 591），依赖于司法后见之明。这种正统观念忽视了立法者和行政人员在法律正式颁布之前的审议和咨询远见（事前审查），由于权力分立（Bennion，1993年），从而密封了国家的每一个分支。这种方法的问题是，法律的合宪性可能与其颁布的环境脱节，从而使国家行为者之间的互动变得愚蠢（Vanberg，2001年）。关于法定“意图”来评估合宪性的司法问题基本上是虚构的，因为就非司法预见而言的真实的“意图”被忽视了（布莱克-克劳森）。其结果可能导致法律的黑洞，例如对显然不可复审的法庭的可复审性（隐私国际[2019] UKSC 22）和法定条款变得不可执行（米勒1 [2017] UKSC 5）。这种脱节的问题已经看到宪法学说的硬化，国家机构相互指责宪法功能失调（英国广播公司，2019年）和反动的反应，试图限制司法和从根本上改变宪法学说（埃金斯，2019年）。这表明了宪法剧变的倾向（Vermeule，2019）。由于英国很少有关于事前审查的文献，可比司法管辖区的现有文献（阿普尔比，2017; Bauman，2009）认为这种审查是影子合宪性审查，事后审查继续主导宪法学说（Elliott，2001）。这没有探讨事前审查和事后审查如何协同增效，从而导致上述宪法理论更加强硬。因此，有必要考虑在司法管辖区的事前审查和事前行为者的观点的传统，以颠覆日益硬化的正统和更好地在英国框架合宪性合宪性。AIMS和强制性本项目旨在颠覆事后正统的合宪性。该项目不是目前所理解的“影子”审查，而是在对合宪性的非正统理解（包括事后审查）的范围内，借鉴不同司法管辖区的理论理解和联合王国所有国家行为者的观点，探讨和审查事前审查。其目标是更好地将合宪性理论框架化为不同国家行为者之间的协同作用。研究问题如何可以事前审查的过程和结果是规范地位于在英国的合宪性的理解？1.第二个问题：具有不同程度的正式和非正式事前审查的可比管辖区（澳大利亚、加拿大和法国）如何根据这种审查来理解合宪性？2.在联合王国（权力下放和中央一级政府），事前审查的程序是什么？3.事前审查如何告知英国司法和非司法行为者的合宪性观点？潜在的应用和好处这个项目应该是非常有价值的立法者和决策者以及那些谁审查立法过程。"

"RESEARCH CONTEXTCurrently understood constitutionality evaluates an enacted law's compliance with constitutional principles or a codified constitutional text ex post facto (Elliott, 2001). This is a judicial task (Black-Clawson International [1975] AC 591), reliant on judicial hindsight. This orthodoxy ignores the deliberative and advisory foresight by legislators and executive actors before a law is formally enacted (ex ante review), due to the separation of powers (Bennion, 1993), thus hermetically sealing each branch of the state.The problem with this approach is that a law's constitutionality can be disconnected from the circumstances of its enactment, stultifying interaction between state actors (Vanberg, 2001). Judicial questions as to statutory 'intent' to assess constitutionality are fundamentally fictive, since the real 'intent' in terms of non-judicial foresight is ignored (Black-Clawson). The result can lead to legal black holes such as reviewability of apparently unreviewable tribunals (Privacy International [2019] UKSC 22) and statutory provisions being rendered unenforceable (Miller 1 [2017] UKSC 5).This problem of disconnection has seen a hardening of constitutional doctrine with state institutions blaming one another for constitutional dysfunction (BBC, 2019) and a reactionary response in attempting to circumscribe the judiciary and radically alter constitutional doctrine (Ekins, 2019). This demonstrates the propensity for constitutional upheaval (Vermeule, 2019).With little literature on ex ante review in the UK, existing literature in comparable jurisdictions (Appleby, 2017; Bauman, 2009) considers such review as a shadow constitutionality review, with ex post review continuing to dominate constitutional doctrine (Elliott, 2001). This fails to explore how ex ante and ex post review could be synergised, contributing to the hardening of constitutional doctrine as above. There is thus a need to consider constitutionality in jurisdictions with traditions of ex ante review and perspectives of ex ante actors to subvert an increasingly hardening orthodoxy and better frame constitutionality in the UK.AIMS AND OBJECTIVESThis project aims to subvert the ex post orthodoxy of constitutionality. Rather than being a 'shadow' review as currently understood, this project will explore and situate ex ante review within a heterodox understanding of constitutionality (including ex post review) drawing on doctrinal understandings in different jurisdictions and the perspectives of all UK state actors. The goal is to better frame the doctrine of constitutionality as a synergy between different state actors. RESEARCH QUESTIONSHow can the processes and outcomes of ex ante review be normatively situated within the understanding of constitutionality in the UK?Component questions:1. How do comparable jurisdictions with varying degrees of formal and informal ex ante review (Australia, Canada and France) understand constitutionality in light of such review?2. What are the processes of ex ante review in the UK (devolved and central levels of government)? 3. How does ex ante review inform the constitutionality perspectives of judicial and non-judicial actors in the UK?POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS AND BENEFITSThis project should be of great value to legislators and policymakers as well as those who scrutinise lawmaking processes."