15. Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of
28 May 1985, Series A, No. 94.
16. Airey v. Ireland, Judgment of 9 October 1979, Series A, No. 32.
17. Alajos Kiss v. Hungary, no. 38832/06, ECHR 2010.
18. Aleinikoff, T. A., ‘Constitutional Law in the Age of Balance’, Yale Law
Journal, 1987, Vol. 96.
19. Alexy, R., A Theory of Constitutional Rights, (ed.) Julia Rivers, New
York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
20. Amuur v. France, Judgment of 25 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and
Decisions1996-III.
21. Angelini v. Sweden (dec.), No 1041/83, 51 DR 1983.
22. Arrowsmith v. the United Kingdom, Commission’s report of 12 October
1978, No. 7050/75, Decisions and Reports [DR] 19.
23. Arslan v. Turkey, Judgment of 8 July 1999, Series A, No. 23462/94.
24. Autronicag v. Switzerland, Judgment 22 May 1990, Series A, No.
12726/87.
25. Balkandali v. the United Kingdom, Judgment 23 July 1968, Series A,
No. 94.
26. Barry, B., “The Public Interest”, In Political Philosophy, (ed.) A.
Quinton, London: Oxford University Press, 1977.
27. Barry, B., “The Use and Abuse of the Public Interest”, The Public
Interest, (ed.) C.J. Friedrich, New York: Athenton press, 1967.
28. Bork, R. H., “The Role of the Courts in Applying Economics”, Antitrust
Law Journal, 1985, Vol. 54.
فصلنامه تحقیقات حقوقی شماره 70 رویکرد ارزیابی دوباره در مصاف با نظریه توازن
192
29. Dowrkin, R., “Taking Rights Seriously” in Taking Rights Seriously,
Cambridge: Mass: Harvard University Press, 1977.
30. Dworkin, R., A Matter of Principle, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard
University Press, 1985.
31. Evans, S. and Stone A., “Balancing and Proportionality: A Distinctive
Ethic?” Draft for discussion at the VIIWorld Congress of the
International Association of Constitutional Law, Athens, 11-15 June
2007, Available at: http://www.enelsyn.gr/papers/w15/Paper%20/.pdf.
32. Fallon, R. H., “Individual Rights and the Powers of Government”,
Georgia Law Review, 1993, Vol. 27.
33. Fallon, Richard H., “Further Reflections on Rights and Interests: A
Reply”, Georgia Law Review, 1993, Vol. 27.
34. Fayed v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 21 September 1994, Series
A, No. 294-B.
35. Feldman, L. E., “Originalism through Raz-Colored Glasses”, University
of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1992, Vol. 140.
36. Folgerø and Others v. Norway, Judgment of 29 June 2007, Series A, No.
15472/02.
37. Gardbaum, S., ‘A Democratic Defense of Constitutional Balancing’ Law
& Ethics of Human Rights, 2010, Vol. 4.
38. Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 27 March 1996, Reports
1996-II.
39. Greer, S., “Balancing and the European Court of Human Rights: A
Contribution to theHabermas-Alexy Debate” ,Cambridge Law Journal,
2004, Vol. 63.
40. Habermas, J., Between Facts and Norms: Contribution to a Discourse
Theory of Law and Democracy, (ed.) William Regh, Cambridge: Polity
Press, 1996.
41. Hare, R. M., “Ethical Theory and Utilitarianism” Utilitarianism and
Beyond, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
42. Held, V., The Public and Individual Interest, New York: Basic Books, 1970.
43. Hickman, T., “Constitutional Dialogue, Constitutional Theories and the
Human Rights Act 1998”, Public Law Review, 2005, Vol. 16.
فصلنامه تحقیقات حقوقی شماره 70 رویکرد ارزیابی دوباره در مصاف با نظریه توازن
193
44. Kahn, P. W., ’TheCourt, the Community and the Judicial Balance: the
Jurisprudence of Justice Powell’, Yale Law Journal, Vol. 97, 1987.
45. Kant, I., Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, (trans.) Ellington,
and J., USA: Hackle Publishing Company, 1993.
46. Kavanagh, A., “The Elusive Divide between Interpretation and
Legislation under the Human Rights Act 1998”, Oxford Journal of Legal
Studies, 2004, Vol. 24.
47. Kiyutin v. Russia, Judgment of 10 May 2011, Series A, No. 2700/10.
48. Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark, Judgment of 7
December 1976, Series A, Nos. 5095/71; 5920/72; 5926/72.
49. Kumm, M., “Political Liberalism and the Structure of Rights: On the
Place and Limits of the Proportionality Requirement” Law, Rights and
Discourse: The Legal Philosophy of Robert Alexy, (ed.) George
Pavlakos, Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2007.
50. LeylaŞahin v. Turkey, Judgment of 10 November 2005, series A, No.
44774/98.
51. Luban, D. and Goldstone R., ‘The Tension between Combating
Terrorism and Protecting Civil Liberties’, the War on Terror, (ed.) Ashby
Wilson, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
52. Luban, D., ‘Eight Fallacies about Liberty and Security’, the War on Terror,
(ed.) Ashby Wilson, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
53. Meyerson, D., “Why Courts Should Not Balance Rights Against The
Public Interest”, Melbourne University Law Review, 2007, Vol. 31.
54. Murray v. The United Kingdom, Judgment of 28 October 1994, Series A,
No14310/88.
55. Myerson, D., “State and Federal Privative Clauses, Not So Different after
All”, Public Law Review, 2005, Vol. 16.
56. Nagel, T., Mortal Questions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
57. Nicol, D., “Law and Politics after the Human Rights Act” Public Law
Review, 2006, Vol. 17.
58. Otto-Preminger-Institute v. Austria, judgment of 20 September 1994,
Series A, No. 295-A.
59. Paton, H. J., The Categorical Imperative: A Study in Kant’s Moral
Philosophy, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania University Press, 1971.
فصلنامه تحقیقات حقوقی شماره 70 رویکرد ارزیابی دوباره در مصاف با نظریه توازن
194
60. Perry, S. R., “Judicial Obligation, Precedent and the Common Law”
Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 1987, Vol. 7.
61. Perry, S. R., “Second- Order Reasons, Uncertainty and Legal Theory”,
Southern California Law Review, 1989, Vol. 62.
62. Posner, R. A., Law, Pragmatism and Democracy, Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 2003.
63. R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd (1985), 1SCR 295.
64. R v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire; Ex parte LS; Ex parte Marper
[Marper], (2004), No. 4 All ER 193.
65. R v Oakes (1986), 1 SCR 103.
66. Rawls, J., A Theory of Justice, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971.
67. Raz, J., Ethics in the Public Domain: Essays in the Morality of Law and
Politics, Revised Edition, New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
68. Raz, J., Practical Reason and Norms, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999.
69. Raz, J., The Authority of Law, New York: Oxford University Press, 1983.
70. Refah Party and Others v. Turkey, Judgment of 31 July 2001, Series A,
Nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98.
71. Rorty, R., "Human Rights, Rationality and Sentimentality", in On
Human Rights, (ed.) S. Shute and S. Hurley, New York: Oxford Amnesty
lectures, 1993, Available at: http://www.jstore.org
72. Sales, Ph. And Hooper, B., “Proportionality and the Form of Law”, Law
Quarterly Review, 2003, Vol. 119.
73. Schauer, F., “A Comment on the Structure of Rights”, Georgia Law
Review, 1993, Vol. 27.
74. Schauer, F., “Commensurability and its Constitutional Consequences”,
Hastings Law Journal, 1994, Vol. 45.
75. Schauer, F., Playing by the Rules: A Philosophical Examination ofRule-
Based DecisionMaking in Law and in Life, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991.
76. Schauer, F.,”The Limited Domain of the Law”, Virginia Law Review,
2004, Vol. 90.
فصلنامه تحقیقات حقوقی شماره 70 رویکرد ارزیابی دوباره در مصاف با نظریه توازن
195
77. Serif v. Greece, Judgment of 14 December 1999, Series A, No.
38178/97.
78. Singer, P., “Kant’s Ethics of Duty”, in Ethics, (ed.) Peter Singer, Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1996.
79. Sürek and Others v. Turkey, Judgment 8 July of 1999, Series A, Nos.
23927/94 and 24277/94.
80. Taylor, C., “The Diversity of Goods” in Utilitarianism and Beyond, New
York: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
81. Teson, FR, ‘Liberal Security’, In Human Rights in the War on Terror,
(ed.) Ashby Wilson, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
82. The Former King of Greece and Others v. Greece, Judgment of 23
November 2000, Series A, No. 25701/94.
83. Tsakyrakis, S., ‘Proportionality: An Assault on Human Rights?’,
International Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 7, 2009.
84. Vick, D. W., “Deontological Dicta”, Modern Law Review, 2002, Vol. 65.
85. Vogt v. Germany, Judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A, No.
17851/91.
)