The Experts below are selected from a list of 56841 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Gregoire Webber - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Proportionality and the rule of law rights justification reasoning
Social Science Research Network, 2014Co-Authors: Grant Huscroft, Bradley W Miller, Gregoire WebberAbstract:To speak of human rights in the twenty-first century is to speak of Proportionality. Proportionality has been received into the constitutional doctrine of courts in continental Europe, the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, Israel, South Africa, and the United States, as well as the jurisprudence of treaty-based legal systems such as the European Convention on Human Rights. Proportionality provides a common analytical framework for resolving the great moral and political questions confronting political communities. But behind the singular appeal to Proportionality lurks a range of different understandings. This volume brings together many of the world's leading constitutional theorists – proponents and critics of Proportionality – to debate the merits of Proportionality, the nature of rights, the practice of judicial review, and moral and legal reasoning. Their essays provide important new perspectives on this leading doctrine in human rights law.
-
Proportionality and the rule of law rights justification reasoning
2014Co-Authors: Grant Huscroft, Bradley W Miller, Gregoire WebberAbstract:Proportionality has been received into the constitutional doctrine of courts in Continental Europe, the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, Israel, South Africa, and the United States, as well as the jurisprudence of treaty-based legal systems such as the European Convention on Human Rights.Proportionality provides a common analytical framework for resolving the great moral and political questions confronting political communities. But behind the singular appeal to Proportionality lurks a range of different understandings. This volume brings together many of the world's leading constitutional theorists – proponents and critics of Proportionality – to debate the merits of Proportionality, the nature of rights, the practice of judicial review, and moral and legal reasoning. Their essays provide important new perspectives on this leading doctrine in human rights law.This is the Introduction to Proportionality and the Rule of Law: Rights, Justification, Reasoning, published by Cambridge University Press in April, 2014. In addition to the Introduction, this paper includes a list of contributors and a table of contents.
Raymond French - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
exploratory assessment of dose Proportionality review of current approaches and proposal for a practical criterion
Pharmaceutical Statistics, 2009Co-Authors: Jurgen Hummel, Sue Mckendrick, Charlie Brindley, Raymond FrenchAbstract:This article reviews currently used approaches for establishing dose Proportionality in Phase I dose escalation studies. A review of relevant literature between 2002 and 2006 found that the power model was the preferred choice for assessing dose Proportionality in about one-third of the articles. This article promotes the use of the power model and a conceptually appealing extension, i.e. a criterion based on comparing the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of predicted mean values from the extremes of the dose range (Rdnm) to pre-defined equivalence criterion (ϑL,ϑU). The choice of bioequivalence default values of ϑL=0.8 and ϑU=1.25 seems reasonable for dose levels only a doubling apart but are impractically strict when applied over the complete dose range. Power calculations are used to show that this prescribed criterion lacks power to conclude dose Proportionality in typical Phase I dose-escalation studies. A more lenient criterion with values ϑL=0.5 and ϑU=2 is proposed for exploratory dose Proportionality assessments across the complete dose range. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
-
exploratory assessment of dose Proportionality review of current approaches and proposal for a practical criterion
Pharmaceutical Statistics, 2009Co-Authors: Jurgen Hummel, Sue Mckendrick, Charlie Brindley, Raymond FrenchAbstract:This article reviews currently used approaches for establishing dose Proportionality in Phase I dose escalation studies. A review of relevant literature between 2002 and 2006 found that the power model was the preferred choice for assessing dose Proportionality in about one-third of the articles. This article promotes the use of the power model and a conceptually appealing extension, i.e. a criterion based on comparing the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of predicted mean values from the extremes of the dose range (R(dnm)) to pre-defined equivalence criterion (theta(L),theta(U)). The choice of bioequivalence default values of theta(L)=0.8 and theta(U)=1.25 seems reasonable for dose levels only a doubling apart but are impractically strict when applied over the complete dose range. Power calculations are used to show that this prescribed criterion lacks power to conclude dose Proportionality in typical Phase I dose-escalation studies. A more lenient criterion with values theta(L)=0.5 and theta(U)=2 is proposed for exploratory dose Proportionality assessments across the complete dose range.
Jurgen Hummel - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
exploratory assessment of dose Proportionality review of current approaches and proposal for a practical criterion
Pharmaceutical Statistics, 2009Co-Authors: Jurgen Hummel, Sue Mckendrick, Charlie Brindley, Raymond FrenchAbstract:This article reviews currently used approaches for establishing dose Proportionality in Phase I dose escalation studies. A review of relevant literature between 2002 and 2006 found that the power model was the preferred choice for assessing dose Proportionality in about one-third of the articles. This article promotes the use of the power model and a conceptually appealing extension, i.e. a criterion based on comparing the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of predicted mean values from the extremes of the dose range (Rdnm) to pre-defined equivalence criterion (ϑL,ϑU). The choice of bioequivalence default values of ϑL=0.8 and ϑU=1.25 seems reasonable for dose levels only a doubling apart but are impractically strict when applied over the complete dose range. Power calculations are used to show that this prescribed criterion lacks power to conclude dose Proportionality in typical Phase I dose-escalation studies. A more lenient criterion with values ϑL=0.5 and ϑU=2 is proposed for exploratory dose Proportionality assessments across the complete dose range. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
-
exploratory assessment of dose Proportionality review of current approaches and proposal for a practical criterion
Pharmaceutical Statistics, 2009Co-Authors: Jurgen Hummel, Sue Mckendrick, Charlie Brindley, Raymond FrenchAbstract:This article reviews currently used approaches for establishing dose Proportionality in Phase I dose escalation studies. A review of relevant literature between 2002 and 2006 found that the power model was the preferred choice for assessing dose Proportionality in about one-third of the articles. This article promotes the use of the power model and a conceptually appealing extension, i.e. a criterion based on comparing the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of predicted mean values from the extremes of the dose range (R(dnm)) to pre-defined equivalence criterion (theta(L),theta(U)). The choice of bioequivalence default values of theta(L)=0.8 and theta(U)=1.25 seems reasonable for dose levels only a doubling apart but are impractically strict when applied over the complete dose range. Power calculations are used to show that this prescribed criterion lacks power to conclude dose Proportionality in typical Phase I dose-escalation studies. A more lenient criterion with values theta(L)=0.5 and theta(U)=2 is proposed for exploratory dose Proportionality assessments across the complete dose range.
David S Law - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Proportionality review of administrative action in japan korea taiwan and china
Social Science Research Network, 2016Co-Authors: Chengyi Huang, David S LawAbstract:Much of East Asia has moved in recent decades toward more extensive substantive review of administrative action, and the doctrinal vehicle for this movement has typically been the adoption of some form of Proportionality analysis. This contribution to an edited volume describes and offers explanations for the trajectory of Proportionality review in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and China. Substantive judicial review of administrative action is far from uniform across these four countries. Whereas the Japanese judiciary remains reluctant to embrace Proportionality review openly, courts in Korea and Taiwan have developed increasingly elaborate versions of Proportionality analysis, and there are signs that the principle of Proportionality is gaining traction in Chinese administrative law. More surprisingly, however, our account also highlights the existence of significant differences within countries that rival in magnitude the differences between countries. These intranational as opposed to international variations are attributable in large part to the existence of multiple institutions with overlapping responsibility for shaping administrative law. In Korea and Taiwan, the existence of specialized constitutional courts in addition to ordinary courts or administrative courts has meant in practice that different courts sometimes end up applying competing versions of Proportionality analysis to administrative decisionmaking. In China, the potential for intranational variation is even greater, notwithstanding the absence of constitutional review. A combination of uncoordinated experimentation at the provincial level, piecemeal legislation at the national level, and episodic guidance from top leadership has generated a fragmentation of administrative law and opened the door to multiple evolutionary possibilities.The chapter concludes with a discussion of four potential explanations for the spread of Proportionality review in East Asia that might also apply more broadly. These explanations are (1) conscious effort by courts to expand their own power, (2) the functional difficulty of performing substantive review without resort to some form of Proportionality analysis, (3) the sheer global popularity of Proportionality review, and (4) the potential for doctrinal migration from constitutional law to administrative law.
Bradley W Miller - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Proportionality and the rule of law rights justification reasoning
Social Science Research Network, 2014Co-Authors: Grant Huscroft, Bradley W Miller, Gregoire WebberAbstract:To speak of human rights in the twenty-first century is to speak of Proportionality. Proportionality has been received into the constitutional doctrine of courts in continental Europe, the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, Israel, South Africa, and the United States, as well as the jurisprudence of treaty-based legal systems such as the European Convention on Human Rights. Proportionality provides a common analytical framework for resolving the great moral and political questions confronting political communities. But behind the singular appeal to Proportionality lurks a range of different understandings. This volume brings together many of the world's leading constitutional theorists – proponents and critics of Proportionality – to debate the merits of Proportionality, the nature of rights, the practice of judicial review, and moral and legal reasoning. Their essays provide important new perspectives on this leading doctrine in human rights law.
-
Proportionality and the rule of law rights justification reasoning
2014Co-Authors: Grant Huscroft, Bradley W Miller, Gregoire WebberAbstract:Proportionality has been received into the constitutional doctrine of courts in Continental Europe, the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, Israel, South Africa, and the United States, as well as the jurisprudence of treaty-based legal systems such as the European Convention on Human Rights.Proportionality provides a common analytical framework for resolving the great moral and political questions confronting political communities. But behind the singular appeal to Proportionality lurks a range of different understandings. This volume brings together many of the world's leading constitutional theorists – proponents and critics of Proportionality – to debate the merits of Proportionality, the nature of rights, the practice of judicial review, and moral and legal reasoning. Their essays provide important new perspectives on this leading doctrine in human rights law.This is the Introduction to Proportionality and the Rule of Law: Rights, Justification, Reasoning, published by Cambridge University Press in April, 2014. In addition to the Introduction, this paper includes a list of contributors and a table of contents.
