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

“研究内容当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(Elliott，2001)。这是一项司法任务(Black-Clawson International[1975]AC 591)，依赖于事后司法。由于三权分立(Bennion，1993)，这种正统观点忽视了立法者和执行行为者在法律正式颁布(事前审查)之前的深思熟虑和咨询预见，从而封闭了国家的每个分支。这种方法的问题是，法律的合宪性可能与其制定的情况脱节，使国家行为者之间的互动变得乏味(Vanberg，2001)。关于评估合宪性的法定“意图”的司法问题基本上是虚构的，因为从非司法远见的角度来看，真正的“意图”被忽视了(布莱克-克劳森)。其结果可能导致法律黑洞，例如显然不可复审的法庭的可审性(Privacy International[2019]UKSC 22)和法定条款变得不可执行(Miller 1[2017]UKSC 5)。这种脱节的问题导致宪法原则变得更加强硬，国家机构相互指责对方造成宪法功能障碍(BBC，2019年)，以及试图限制司法并从根本上改变宪法原则的反动反应(Ekins，2019年)。这表明了宪法剧变的倾向(Vermeule，2019)。由于英国关于事前审查的文献很少，可比司法管辖区的现有文献(Appleby，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理论(Elliott，2001)。这未能探讨事前审查和事后审查如何协同进行，从而有助于强化上述宪法原则。因此，有必要在具有事前审查传统和事前行为者观点的司法管辖区考虑合宪性，以颠覆英国日益强硬的正统观念和更好的合宪性框架。他的项目旨在颠覆合宪性的事后正统观念。该项目不是目前所理解的“影子”审查，而是利用不同司法管辖区的理论理解和英国所有国家行为者的观点，探索并将事前审查置于对合宪性(包括事后审查)的非正统理解中。其目标是将合宪性原则更好地框架为不同国家行为者之间的协同作用。研究问题如何才能使事前审查的过程和结果符合英国对合宪性的理解？构成问题：1.具有不同程度正式和非正式事前审查的可比司法管辖区(澳大利亚、加拿大和法国)如何根据这种审查理解合宪性？2.英国的事前审查程序是什么(下放和中央政府级别)？3.事前审查如何为英国司法和非司法行为者提供合宪性视角？潜在的申请和BENEFITS他的项目对立法者和政策制定者以及审查立法过程的人应该有很大的价值。

"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."