THE CZECH CONSTITUTIONAL COURT AND THE JAPANESE SUPREME COURT – SHOULD THEY BE THE REAL EXAMPLES OF ACTIVISM VERSUS RESTRAINT?

Abstract

This paper argues whether the Czech Constitutional Court should be the example of Activism, and whether the Japanese Supreme Court should be characterised as the example of Restraint in the context of constitutional justice. For instance, the former has declared numerous laws unconstitutional in the past two decades, while the latter has declared only a limited number unconstitutional in the past 68 years. We will examine the appropriateness of these characterisations by comparing and contrasting their brief histories, competences, and the nomination processes and precedents, in order to discuss their roles in the transitional period towards the new constitutionalism, paying specific attention to the extent politicisation has impacted each Courts.