Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2011
Abstract
Recent years have witnessed an outpouring of literature evaluating whether judges should refer to foreign law in resolving domestic legal disputes. A range of theories now posit constitutional comparison, outlining its benefits and highlighting its promise. Yet the support for such a practice is deeply qualified; comparative scholars narrowly limit the nations that should be considered while performing comparative study. This essay in comparative law theory reflects upon India's recent sodomy decision, Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi, to evaluate which countries should be part of the comparative law project. In Naz, the Delhi High Court decriminalized homosexuality while referring extensively to a range of unlikely foreign sources, such as decisions from Nepal and Fiji. Assessing the role that such references may have played, this essay considers how Naz calls on us to revisit the boundary question in comparative constitutional law by revealing the network effect of judicial decisions. Drawing on the distinction between content-independent and contentdependent reasons, this essay illustrates the nature of force that foreign law may exert and demonstrates why an inclusive approach towards constitutional comparison may not only be beneficial but perhaps necessary. Such an approach holds the greatest promise of responding to concerns like cherry-picking, and gives our work an opportunity to be not merely comparative but truly global.
Disciplines
Comparative and Foreign Law | Constitutional Law | Law
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Recommended Citation
Madhav Khosla,
Inclusive Constitutional Comparison: Reflections on India's Sodomy Decision,
59
Am. J. Comp. L.
909
(2011).
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/4783