<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">
  <record>
    <leader>00000nam  2200000   4500</leader>
    <controlfield tag="001">INLIS000000000009853</controlfield>
    <controlfield tag="005">20221031045757</controlfield>
    <datafield tag="035" ind1="#" ind2="#">
      <subfield code="a">0010-0520009853</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <controlfield tag="008">221031################|##########|#eng##</controlfield>
    <datafield tag="020" ind1="#" ind2="#">
      <subfield code="a">9781107175068</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="a">eng</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="082" ind1="#" ind2="#">
      <subfield code="a">342.08</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="084" ind1="#" ind2="#">
      <subfield code="a">342.08 URB c</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2="#">
      <subfield code="a">Urbina, Fransisco J.</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="#">
      <subfield code="a">Critique of Proportionality and Balancing /</subfield>
      <subfield code="c">Fransisco J. Urbina</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="260" ind1="#" ind2="#">
      <subfield code="a">New York :</subfield>
      <subfield code="b">Cambridge University Press,</subfield>
      <subfield code="c">2017</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="520" ind1="#" ind2="#">
      <subfield code="a">The principle of proportionality, which has become the standard test for adjudicating human and constitutional rights disputes in jurisdictions worldwide has had few critics. Proportionality is generally taken for granted or enthusiastically promoted or accepted with minor qualifications. A Critique of Proportionality and Balancing presents a frontal challenge to this orthodoxy. It provides a comprehensive critique of the proportionality principle, and particularly of its most characteristic component, balancing. Divided into three parts, the book presents arguments against the proportionality test, critiques the view of rights entailed by it, and proposes an alternative understanding of fundamental rights and their limit</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4">
      <subfield code="a">Proportionality in law</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4">
      <subfield code="a">Human rights</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="300" ind1="#" ind2="#">
      <subfield code="a">267</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="990" ind1="#" ind2="#">
      <subfield code="a">26498/MKRI-P/XII-2018</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="990" ind1="#" ind2="#">
      <subfield code="a">26498/MKRI-P/XII-2018</subfield>
    </datafield>
  </record>
</collection>
