Document Type



Michigan Law Review 101 (2003): 201-237.


In this Article, I explore the question of why constitutional review, but not American judicial review, spread across Europe. I will also argue that, despite obvious organic differences between the American and European systems of review, there is an increasing convergence in how review actually operates. I proceed as follows. In Part I, I examine the debate on establishing judicial review in Europe, focusing on the French. In Parts II and III, I contrast the European and the American models of review, and briefly discuss why the Kelsenian constitutional court diffused across Europe. In Part IV, I argue that despite important formal, institutional distinctions, there is increasing convergence in how the two systems of review actually operate.

Date of Authorship for this Version


Included in

Law Commons