Abstract

I aim to shed theoretical light on the meaning of judicial dialogue by comparing its practice in different jurisdictions. I first examine the practice of dialogic judicial review in Westminster democracies and constitutional departmentalism in American constitutional theory, showing the tendency toward judicial supremacy in both cases. Turning finally to continental Europe, I argue that the practice of constitutional dialogue there is reconciled with its postwar tradition of judicial supremacy through the deployment of proportionality analysis-framed judicial admonition. I conclude that constitutional dialogue may take place amid the judicialization of constitutional politics, albeit in the shadow of judicial supremacy