<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<mods xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3" version="3.1" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-1.xsd">
  <titleInfo>
    <nonSort>The </nonSort>
    <title>Politics of Principle</title>
    <subTitle>The First South African Constitutional Court, 1995–2005 / [electronic resource]</subTitle>
  </titleInfo>
  <name type="personal">
    <namePart>Roux, Theunis</namePart>
    <role>
      <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">creator</roleTerm>
    </role>
    <role>
      <roleTerm type="text">author.</roleTerm>
    </role>
  </name>
  <typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
  <originInfo>
    <place>
      <placeTerm type="code" authority="marccountry">enk</placeTerm>
    </place>
    <dateIssued encoding="marc">2013</dateIssued>
    <issuance>monographic</issuance>
  </originInfo>
  <language>
    <languageTerm authority="iso639-2b" type="code">eng</languageTerm>
  </language>
  <physicalDescription>
    <form authority="marcform">electronic</form>
    <extent>1 online resource (450 pages) : digital, PDF file(s).</extent>
  </physicalDescription>
  <abstract>Under its first chief justice, Arthur Chaskalson, the South African Constitutional Court built an unrivalled reputation in the comparative constitutional law community for technically accomplished and morally enlightened decision-making. At the same time, the Court proved remarkably effective in asserting its institutional role in post-apartheid politics. While each of these accomplishments is noteworthy in its own right, the Court's simultaneous success in legal and political terms demands separate investigation. Drawing on and synthesising various insights from judicial politics and legal theory, this study offers an interdisciplinary explanation for the Chaskalson Court's achievement. Rather than a purely political strategy of the kind modelled by rational choice theorists, the study argues that the Court's achievement is attributable to a series of adjudicative strategies in different areas of law. In combination, these strategies allowed the Court to satisfy institutional norms of public reason-giving while at the same time avoiding political attack.</abstract>
  <note type="statement of responsibility">Theunis Roux.</note>
  <note>Title from publisher's bibliographic system (viewed on 09 Oct 2015).</note>
  <classification authority="lcc">KTL2620  .R68 2013</classification>
  <classification authority="ddc" edition="23">347.68/035</classification>
  <relatedItem type="series">
    <titleInfo>
      <title>Cambridge Studies in Constitutional Law ; no. 6</title>
    </titleInfo>
  </relatedItem>
  <relatedItem type="otherFormat" displayLabel="Print version: "/>
  <relatedItem type="series">
    <titleInfo>
      <title>Cambridge Studies in Constitutional Law ; no. 6</title>
    </titleInfo>
  </relatedItem>
  <identifier type="isbn">9781139005081 (ebook)</identifier>
  <identifier type="isbn" invalid="yes"/>
  <identifier type="isbn" invalid="yes"/>
  <identifier type="uri">http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139005081</identifier>
  <location>
    <url>http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139005081</url>
  </location>
  <recordInfo>
    <recordContentSource authority="marcorg">UkCbUP</recordContentSource>
    <recordCreationDate encoding="marc">110131</recordCreationDate>
    <recordChangeDate encoding="iso8601">20180107143414.0</recordChangeDate>
    <recordIdentifier source="UkCbUP">CR9781139005081</recordIdentifier>
  </recordInfo>
</mods>
