Legal argumentation based on foreign law An example from case law of the South African Constitutional Court

1 See D.M. Davis, ‘Constitutional Borrowing: the Influence of Legal Culture and Local History in the Reconstitution of Comparative Influence: the South African Experience’, 2003 Int. J. of Const. L., pp. 181 et seq. 2 Cf. A. Pizzorusso, Comparazione giuridica e sistema delle fonti del diritto, 2005, p. 32. 3 The thought obviously refers to Chaim Perelman’s theory of legal argumentation according to which ‘the orator’ (in our case the interpreter) has the objective of inducing ‘adherence’ of a specific ‘audience’ through rational argumentation (whose parameters and criteria are provided by the author). The argumentation is thus organised as an ‘instrument’ capable of influencing the audience (socio-psychological conception

Public law doctrine works on a broad and detailed classification of such phenomenon, speaking from time to time of: a) cross-judicial influence 4 ; b) cross-constitutional influence 5 or cross-constitutional fertilization; c) judicial transplant 6 ; d) trans-judicial communication or judicial dialogue 7 ; e) trans-judicial borrowing or precedent borrowing. 8 This last definition explicitly connects the entire phenomenon with Anglo-American law, which follows the principle of the binding precedent (in its various declensions). Thus, modern borrowing of precedents between constitutional judges would be an expansion of a typical format of common law that evolved from a historically common practice among the judges of the ex-Commonwealth countries. Beginning in the 19 th century these judges largely used precedents of foreign judges, generally British ones and in particular the Privy Council. The Privy Council was the court of final appeal for the colonies and dominions, a function that it still performs today in relation to a small group of Caribbean countries. Its function of ensuring the exact observation and interpretation of the law deeply influenced the development of law in countries such as New Zealand, Australia, India, South Africa, Hong Kong, Caribbean countries, and Canada (along with other countries in the colonial area of East and Southern Africa). 9 Currently, as shall be shown, the phenomenon of 'borrowing' precedents and interpretive solutions or argumentation models goes well beyond the legal rationale and the geo-cultural borders that defined the relationship between the British Empire's centre and its peripheries. The analysis of constitutional court rulings in legal systems that have adopted new constitutional texts (such as Canada in 1982, South Africa in 1996 in legal systems such as Israel) indicates that judges increasingly resort to a practice of comparing constitutional law by expressly referring to and citing rulings and interpretive solutions of constitutional courts, including ones of Romano-Germanic tradition. Thus, interpretative solutions are now being actively sought and borrowed by courts from different legal traditions, a practice that no longer arises out of subordination.
Subsuming this phenomenon under the function of interpretation allows us to refer to various theories and procedures of legal reasoning, making it possible to verify whether we are 10 Here reference is made to Robert Alexy's reconstruction of argumentation theories and techniques. In his famous study the author carefully examines the 'canons of interpretation' according to Von Savigny's models (grammatical, logical, historical and systematic elements), Larenz's (literal meaning, contextual meaning, the regulatory purposes, aims and normative intentions of the historical legislator, objectiveteleological criteria, and conformity of interpretation to the constitution), and Wolff's (philological, logical, systematic, historical, comparative, genetic, and teleological interpretations) before dealing with his theory of rational legal argumentation, cf. R. Alexy, A Theory of Legal Argumentation, 1989, p. 3. 11 The ambivalence of the positions and the opposing views is evident, cf. W. Osiatynski, 'Paradoxes of constitutional borrowing ', 2003 Int. J. of Thirty-Five Years, 2003, stresses the importance of developing the comparative method according to a functionalist approach. Comparatists must make available to judges and law professionals materials, studies and compilations supporting the application of legislative texts. The author sees the creation of new synergies between research and judicial activities as one of the ways to deal with the growing complexities of contemporary legal phenomena. 62 dealing with a legally acceptable form of legal argumentation. 10 It is no longer a question of verifying the existence of this phenomenon as fact: the evidence is simply irrefutable. The question is, rather, to analyse how these extra-systemic parameters are integrated in the interpretative phase and how the comparative method is actually used. Legal scholars are polarised between celebratory approaches towards the phenomenon and radical skepticism. 11 This study proposes to evaluate if, and to what extent, the comparative method can be a resource for constitutional judges, 12 in particular assessing the risk that its use could provide judges an uncontrollable and arbitrary freedom to manipulate the interpretation and application of the law.

Defining the framework of the interpretation based on extra-systemic parameters
The observation of the phenomenon has an underlying process: the enlargement of the interpretive and argumentative parameters that a judge may resort to when assigning meaning to a normative utterance, balancing and constructing the reasoning for court decisions.
The phenomenon defined as 'dialogue' between judges can produce not only a transformation in interpretive practices, but also in the idea of the legal system as a closed one. According to this rationale, the meaning of an utterance or the resolution of a constitutional issue could potentially be solved using infinite extra-systemic parameters from an undefined number of legal systems other than the national one.
In other words, this type of reasoning would chip away at the idea of a closed group of positive legal norms. Rather than defining the norm applicable to a specific case, this closed system of positive legal norms defines and limits the parameters that a judge may use for interpreting the norm on which he bases his decision. The concern here is that a lack of argumentative rationale, coherence of system and a crisis of the system's unity would all be triggered.
A series of methodological questions arise: 1) when is it necessary to draw on extrasystemic solutions; 2) how can one choose extra-systemic parameters for the purpose of interpreting the national norm. This questions can be subdivided into: 2(a) where may one draw the extrasystemic parameters from (from which legal systems and why); 2(b) how can one check the actual 'relevance' and 'compatibility' between imported parameters and the issues of law subject to national legal disputes; 3) how can one scientifically evaluate whether the normative material imported assumes the same meaning in the original legal system as the one attributed by the importing judges. 13 14 This idea is confirmed in B. Markesinis & J. Fedtke, 'The Judge as Comparatist', 2005 Tul. Un. L. Rev. 80, pp. 11-167, andin D.E. Childress III, 'Using Comparative Constitutional Law in Resolving Domestic Federal Questions', 2003 Duke L. J. 53, pp. 193-221. 15 One of the first studies on this subject is H. Webb, 'The Constitutional Court of South Africa: Rights Interpretation and Comparative Constitutional Law', 1998 U. of Pen. J. of Const. L., pp. 205-283. 16 ', 2006Tul. L. Rev. 80, pp. 1377-1400 Cf. Section 39: '(1) When interpreting the Bill of Rights, (a) a court, tribunal or forum must promote the values that underlie an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom; (b) must consider international law; and; (c) may consider foreign law.
(2) When interpreting any legislation, and when developing the common law or customary law, every court, tribunal or forum must promote the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights.
(3) The Bill of Rights does not deny the existence of any other rights or freedoms that are recognised or conferred by common law, customary law or legislation, to the extent that they are consistent with the Bill'. It is worth noting that these same provisions are also in the text of the Interim Constitution of 1993 If the spread and refinement of this practice were ever made 'legitimate', the comparative method (as a scientific and knowledge seeking method) could become an indispensable tool for the legal scholar (and the judge) to fill in the gaps that the circulation of legal arguments risks generating. 14

The South African case: Constitutional dispensations enabling the importation of extra-systemic parameters
The Constitution of post-apartheid South Africa is the only one that has an express provision allowing the judges to use extra-systemic parameters for interpretation. 15 Therefore, in this phase it is the South African 'model' which must be examined since it is a constitutional system endowed with a norm that has allowed the Constitutional Court to develop a pioneering interpretational role. It should, however, be clarified that the South African Court is not the first to work in dialogue; some examples include the established jurisprudence of the Supreme Courts of Canada 16 and Israel, the frequent references that constitutional judges in Latin-American countries, such as Argentina, make to the Supreme Court of the United States or the unexpected comparative references made by the French Cour de Cassation (under the former Chief Justice Guy Canivet 17 ), or those made in some important judgments of the British House of Lords. The South African Court, however, was the first to do so based on a positive norm. The judges thus had to tackle the problem of systematically establishing the criteria and limits of this practice.
Section 39 of the 1996 Constitution (indexed as Interpretation of the Bill of Rights) states that the Constitutional Court, when interpreting the Bill of Rights, 'must' promote the 'values that underlie an open and democratic society', 'must' consider international public law and 'may' take foreign law into consideration. 18 South African constitutionalist doctrine agrees on three main reasons for this provision. 19 Firstly, the necessity of international legitimacy after decades of isolation of the apartheid regime, which had ignored international standards on fundamental rights. Secondly, the search for international repères capable of aiding the interpretive work of an entirely new constitutional 20 In the beginning the constitutional judges made pedagogical and explanatory efforts illustrating in detail constitutional procedural law. This attitude appears toned down in more recent decisions. This is all comprehensible in light of the fact that judicial review, which was previously unknown to the South African system, needed grounding and consensus among the various legal players. The Court thus attempted to facilitate transparency through argumentative and syntactical clarity of the court decisions, drafting long explanations of the new constitutional context. For example, the Court frequently 'illustrates' what should be the roles of the different institutional and private players. The Court's concern is to minimise the perception of constitutional justice as an infringement on the separation of powers and on the sovereignty of the legislature (a comprehensive example is Phillips and Others v. Director of Public Prosecutions and Others, CCT 20/02, § 12). 21 That these are two different circuits of interpretation has been accurately demonstrated by Markesinis, Comparative Law in the Courtroom and Classroom, supra note 13. The author captures this difference by analysing the development of German jurisprudence (constitutional and administrative) and the use of interpretive parameters or norms outside of the German legal system. The two circuits of interpretation 64 text. In this context, the drafters of the Constitution became increasingly aware of not being able to find points of reference in the previous regime based on a segregationist rationale (established with the Republic of South Africa of 1961), which led to the Constitutional Court having to formulate a particular form of historical interpretation of the Constitution aimed at recuperating the common law of the 1910 South African Union (which partially recognised the rights and guarantees of non-white people). Thirdly and finally, the awareness that introducing judicial review in South Africa would require a period of legal and cultural 'learning'. If the transformation of the entire legal system was already a major effort for all the participants in the South African legal system, the introduction of constitutional justice brought with it the need for the development of a pedagogical approach to using this instrument for members of the ordinary judiciary, the components of the legal system and the constitutional judges themselves. 20 For these reasons post-apartheid South Africa has had to make virtue of necessity. Acting as a listener, referring to interpretive models of other constitutional judges, calling upon widespread legal institutional culture and breathing life into a courageous constitutional compromise, it has tried to make up for its decade long cultural and legal delay.
The field should nonetheless be cleared of all possible misunderstandings that could arise when commenting on the use of extra-systemic legal elements. Section 39 in reality contains two distinct statements. The first sets out an obligation for the Court to consider international public law. However, this is part of the formal legal framework of constitutional sources and participation of the South African constitutional system in an international system. On the other hand, the second statements establishes a 'faculty' of the Court to consider 'foreign law'. These are two interpretive procedures that only appear to be similar and cannot be regarded as one. In fact, as a matter of principle, international law is connected to the domestic legal system by positive enforcement norms through ratification procedures (though in different ways depending on the constitutional set up).
This cannot be said for extra-systemic constitutional parameters or 'alien constitutional elements' (the so called 'foreign law' of the above mentioned Section 39). This second case differs from the application of international norms of ratified conventions; the circulation, in this second case, is produced mostly journey to an extraneous constitutional system not formally connected with the 'importing' one.
Thus, it is a mistake to consider that considering foreign law is the same as making reference to norms of international systems (which is an obligation in South Africa grounded in constitutional norms). In other words, making effective international public law norms binding in South Africa has nothing to do with the interpretive procedure based on extra-systemic parameters. On the one hand, norms are applied that have been produced by a system outside of the national sphere, but to which South Africa formally belongs. On the other, interpretive solutions created or decreed by foreign constitutional courts may be freely used for interpreting the South African Constitution. 21 are based upon different sources and function according to different legal mechanisms. One operates when applying norms of international private, public or European Union law, the other works on the basis of horizontal borrowings of extra-systemic parameters. The former thus is mostly governed by the rationale of positive law (the validity of the norm), whereas the latter operates in absence of an 'inherent link to [the] foreign law' called upon. 22 Cf. CCT/5/94. The Zuma case involves the ruling of unconstitutionality of Section 217 1b(ii) of Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 governing the controversial issue of the right to silence and the authenticity of confessions of guilt obtained by deceit, intimidation or by forms of physical or psychological pressure. According to the criminal procedure code in force during apartheid, a confession of guilt could be gathered even by police force members without it having to be repeated during the trial. The provisions in question contain elements that are traditionally absent in British common law according to which a confession is valid only if obtained by a judge. In particular, the Court was called to rule on the constitutional justification of the automatic inversion of the burden of proof that the norm in question creates, which is something extremely harmful to the guarantees of the accused and to the principle of the presumption of innocence. In fact, it would be up to the person confessing to prove that the confessions obtained by police force members were done so with violence or deceit. The applicant, Mr. Zuma, appeared to have confessed to the police that he was responsible for a homicide. Nevertheless, throughout the trial the defendant retracted the confession claiming that it was obtained by violence. In support of his claim Mr. Zuma called two witnesses who confirmed his argument. In order to decide whether the provisions of s. Another clarification should also be made: the extra-systemic parameters are not, as the Court confirms, directly legally binding; in fact, the Constitution simply 'authorises' the interpreters to enlarge the category of interpretive parameters by including foreign law. In addition, the Court often refers to extra-systemic parameters of international systems of which South Africa is not part (such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the Inter-American Convention). In this situation, circulation is created by virtue of another route of changing systems. Indeed, the relationship between the South African constitutional system and regional systems protecting human rights seems analogous in some ways to the one between the South African constitutional system and constitutional systems from which extra-systemic interpretive parameters are imported: in both cases the Court makes use of interpretive parameters of systems to which South Africa is not formally bound. It is intended to analyse what appears to be a recurring 'pattern' of legal argumentation used by the Court, which is defined here as 'probative importation'. In this legal argumentation technique, foreign interpretations or 'extraneous legal elements' are cited as if they were 'proof' against (when a judge in a dissenting opinion provides a differing interpretation than that of the main judgment to disprove of its result) or for (when a judge, even in a concurring opinion, provides converging foreign case studies in support of his or her hypothesis). This first pattern is grounded in the assertion: 'they also think this way abroad'. In order to buttress a certain interpretation, judges assert that it corresponds, falls in line or coincides with the interpretation of a foreign judge. The interpretation precedes the citation of foreign cases. The use of extrasystemic parameters in this case has the function of adding rhetorical and evidentiary force to the interpretation.

Probative importation or arguing for or against a main thesis: Examples of legal reasoning based on extra-systemic parameters
A second pattern falls under probative importation; it is similar to the first, but corresponds with the assertion: 'considering that they think this way abroad…' (that is, if this constitutional utterance has this meaning in other pre-selected systems), then '… we also assign it with this same meaning'. This formula differs from the previous one because it proceeds first with identifying the foreign interpretive model to which it subsequently links the interpretation. In this case the phenomenon has even more problematic consequences. Potentially infinite foreign interpretations or argumentations can contain parameters that can be used to distill the 'meaning' of a national constitutional norm or to derive argumentative models. If assigning meaning to an statement usually hides a 'limited creative procedure' that sometimes relies on data outside of positive law, here 'creation' goes very far. In fact, deriving the meaning of national normative utterances directly and automatically from extra-systemic parameters indirectly means incorporating a pseudo-source. In this case, having the judge's point of view be preceded by the assertion: 'considering that they think this way abroad…' produces a consequential dynamic. The interpretation of a specific constitutional utterance is automatically derived from a foreign parameter by means of a procedure whereby an extra-systemic precedent subsumes a particular case.
The value assumed by the citation can vary greatly according to its location in the decision: (1) in the main text of the ruling (majority opinion), (2) in the concurring opinion, or (3) in the dissenting opinion. Notwithstanding the extreme interest of this manner of argumentation, in some cases, it might degenerate in forms of legitimatio ex post of interpretations already established in a judge's mind, regardless of whether this be borrowing foreign solutions for opposing the majority opinion, as proof against a dissenting opinion or as a minority judgment. 24 Moving to some concrete examples. In the judgment Phillips and others v. Director of Public Prosecutions and others 25 the legitimacy of limiting the freedom of expression (Section 16) and in particular the freedom of artistic creativity was at stake. It was argued that this freedom is violated by the provisions of Section 160 d of the Liquor Act 27 of 1989 on licenses for selling liquor. The norm obliged the holder of an on-consumption license to refrain from selling liquor when there were performances on the premises that are 'offensive, indecent or obscene' or by persons 'not clothed or not properly clothed'. Heavy penalties were due if the norm was violated. The Court needed to evaluate the legitimacy of limiting a fundamental right of great symbolic importance for the post-apartheid system and whether that limitation could be justified in light of the criteria laid down by the limitation clause of Section 36, 1996 Constitution (when the criteria are verified, as we have already seen, the limitation of the rights contained in the Bill of Rights is allowed). The Court declared Section 160 d unconstitutional; the 'obscene' content of a performance was not a legitimate criterion for the limitation of the freedom of expression in the form of a performance, even if the type of performance took place where alcohol was being served. Assigning meaning to the notion of 'obscenity' was thus fundamental for the judges, who refer to a comparative analysis (in the dissenting opinion of Justice Ngcobo and in the concurring opinion of Justice Sachs) to see whether it is legitimate to prohibit 'obscene' performances in private locales open to the public in other systems.
In the dissenting opinion of Ngcobo, who disagrees with what has been set forth by the other judges and thus orients his reasoning against the judgment issued by the majority of the judges, seeks 'proof' of the legitimacy of his argumentation in a Canadian judgment: Re Koumoudouros et al and Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. 26 In this judgment, the Canadian Justice Erbele (as cited by Ngcobo) affirms that the freedom of expression as laid down by the Constitution of Canada also includes '"artistic" expression'. However, this does not apply to the freedom of artistic expression with obscene content for the purpose of selling a larger quantity of liquor. At the core of this judgment is the analysis that showing genitals is an activity falling within the category of obscenity that, coupled with the purpose of selling a larger quantity of alcohol, neutralises the freedom of artistic expression. The South African judge concurs with the Canadian judge's argumentation, asserting that the freedom of expression elaborated by the South African Constitution does not include, just like the Canadian one (in Justice Erbele's interpretation), performances using the exhibition of genital parts for selling a greater quantity of alcohol rather than for expressing artistic content. The choice of the Canadian judgment is arbitrary (there could be numerous other interpretations, in Canada or in other constitutional systems, to the contrary). The formula of the judge's assertion is the following: 'I do not agree with the main interpretation and as proof of my thesis I call upon the interpretation of other foreign judges'. Justice Sachs's use of foreign jurisprudence and doctrine in the concurring opinion is completely different; he agrees with the majority but wishes to expand the field of argumentation. Sachs J. asserts, in fact, that the definition of obscenity is particularly controversial in other 'important' constitutional systems. Therefore, before proceeding with his reasoning, he considers it useful to present a brief panorama of how the same problem has been dealt with in Canada and the United States. Firstly, Justice Sachs supplies other Canadian judgments that profoundly lessen the seemingly radical value of the judgment cited by Justice Ngcobo. 27  time on working out an unequivocal notion of obscenity and how the issue was later defined 'futile' 28 ; in the end the U.S. court confirms the legitimacy only of limitations confined to single contextual aspects of potentially 'obscene' performances without considering their complete prohibition legitimate. 29 The argumentative formula is thus the following: 'I agree with the majority's interpretation, I do not use any argument in opposition, I would like to add others, I proceed with a limited acknowledgment (and perhaps arbitrary since no criteria are laid down for choosing the legal systems referred to) that confirms the problematic nature of the issue also noticed by other prestigious constitutional judges'. Sachs's argumentative technique can also be read according to the model of setting two extremes, since he creates two opposing poles of interpretation by solely and explicitly citing Canada and the United States and places his hypothesis between them.
Sachs's reasoning based on foreign parameters is, however, weak; the parameters he invokes show that other legal systems ensure the lawfulness of performances with 'obscene' content (falling under the freedom of expression), but they do not answer the fundamental question in casu: is an obscene performance whose main purpose is the sale of liquor a manifestation of the freedom of expression? Can it be proved that performances that include the exhibition of genitals in a place where the serving of alcohol is authorised are really not for the purpose of artistic expression but for increasing the sale of liquor?
The problematic nature of probative importation clearly appears in a controversial judgment decided five against four and includes a separate concurring opinion with the minority: Garreth Anver Prince v. President of the Cape Law Society et al. of 25 th January 2002. 30 The dispute considers a rather strange situation that poses legal problems dealt with by other foreign constitutional judges.
The appellant was a legal scholar with all the qualifications to become an Attorney, but was denied enrollment in the Law Society as a result of two convictions for possessing cannabis. Even in the Constitutional Court, the appellant defended himself by pleading that since he belonged to the Rastafari religion the personal use of cannabis is required as a religious practice and thus is protected by freedom of religion. The use of foreign interpretive models in this case became a means for conducting an internal debate between the various judges' points of view; the citations are an argumentative tool as proof of the decisions assumed by the judges, which gave rise to the methodological problems inherent in manipulating foreign 'arguments' and the inconsistencies with previous interpretations.
South African law bans the use and possession of psychotropic substances except for medical reasons or scientific research. The objective of the decision was to find out whether that ban was too restrictive in relation to a 'bona fide religious purpose' and therefore an unjust limitation of religious freedom. The preliminary analysis of the principles involved tracing a triangle between Sections 15 (Freedom of religion, belief and opinion), 31 (according to which the state protects and encourages Cultural, religious and linguistic communities) and 36, which lays down criteria for limiting rights, such as the aforementioned ones, contained in the Bill of Rights.
Considering the axiological and material coordinates of the new post-apartheid system built on the political myth of the Rainbow Nation and the rich and complex composition of South  Oregon, et al. v. Smith et al., 494, US, 1990, 872-911 The minority opinion, which opens the judgment, stressed a wide interpretation of the freedom to practice one's 'religious belief' (even if illogical and irrational 31 ) and to express, practice, teach and disseminate one's beliefs as long as no 'coercion or restraint' takes place. All of this was reason enough for the minority to tolerate the use of cannabis in the aforementioned circumstances. The majority opinion is, instead, of the opposite opinion.
In any case, in determining the limits of freedom in question, the minority judges sealed their reasoning (hence according to a probative method or one supporting their reasoning) with a Canadian judgment: R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. 32 This decision hinged on the constitutionality of the 'Loi sur le dimanche et observation du dimanche' which the applicant (Drug Mart) was accused of breaking by unlawfully selling merchandise on Sunday. According to established interpretation, the purpose of this law was to compel 'the observance of Sunday as a religious holy day'. The prohibition of Sunday commercial activities responded to the needs of protecting clearly one denomination, and for this reason evidently detrimental to the freedom of those who practice different religions or denominations and of those who do not follow any religion. The Canadian Court, therefore, considered the aforementioned law an unjust limitation of the freedom of conscience and religion ruled by the Charter and more precisely not a 'reasonable limit demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society' (analogous to the South African one, this is the formulation of the constitutional criteria for limiting fundamental rights). The comparative method used by the minority judges created the following decisional and argumentative model: the ban on commercial activities on Sunday in Canada and the absolute ban on using cannabis in South Africa are interchangeable and can be superimposed. The Canadian formula became an argumentative and evidentiary extra-systemic parameter employed in relation to the interpretation of the South African legal system. Bearing in mind the limited health effects of controlled use of cannabis and the lack of drug traffic encouraged by Rastafari liturgical use, the minority opinion held that the limitation would be disproportionate to and invasive of the freedom of religious practice. The judges would have the legislature deal with the regulation of this particular situation.
Here the problematic nature of the comparative method appears in its true shape. In the minority decision, the judges make use of other extra-systemic parameters derived from the opinion of the dissenting opinion of Justice Blackmun of the U.S. Supreme Court in the controversial case (and in some sense quite similar) Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon,et al. v. Smith et al. 33 The subject of this U.S. Supreme Court case was the legitimacy of the liturgical use of the hallucinogenic cactus Peyote in the ceremonies of the Native American Church. In this judgment, the majority of American judges rejected the legitimacy of this practice stating that the exercise of religious freedom 'does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general application on the Minister of Justice', 1999 SAJHR 15. This point is stressed in the separate but concurring minority opinion of Justice Sachs ( § 155), who rightfully takes into consideration a larger number of comparative parameters in an attempt to find a balance and harmonisation between opposing interests. Sachs's approach is to pay attention to the fact that the Rastafari religion would be one of those 'discrete insular minorities' whose protection is a problem of great interest not just for the South African Court but also for 'courts abroad' ( §157) and the United States in particular (whose jurisprudence is cited, United States v. Carolene Products, US, 1938, 304, 144; and established doctrine, L. Tribe, American Constitutionalism, 1988 2 , p. 582). Justice Sachs widens the comparison citing a case quite similar to the American one decided by the Federal Administrative Court of Germany (BverwG AZ 3 (20/00)). The German judges rejected the appeal of a Rastafari practitioner to whom authorities had denied the power of cultivating marijuana plants for 'personal use'. If the legitimacy of the modest quantity of use and possession of marijuana was already the subject of a Constitutional Court ruling (BverGE 90, 145 (185)) according to Justice Sachs in the Administrative Court ruling the German judges really debate on its purpose, stating that in reality the power to cultivate marijuana claimed by the appellant was more oriented toward the anti-prohibitionist campaign as opposed to an actual Rastafari ceremonial need. Sachs appears to deduce from this (or at least his argumentative and rhetorical technique articulates so) that also in the German context the need to use psychotropic substances for religious reasons would be a parameter to consider when evaluating the constitutionality of bans capable of harming some aspects of religious freedom. 36 This excerpt is cited by the South African judges, ibid., pp. 888-889. 37 Cf. R. Bin, Diritti e Argomenti, 1992, pp. 62 et seq., where the author analyzes the operations prior to balancing the interests at play in a specific dispute. These operations are defined as the 'topography of the conflict'. 38 Cf. CCT 42/04. 70 ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his or her religion proscribes (or prescribes)'. 34 Within the South African Court, exactly the same conflict of interpretation is reproduced: the minority of South African judges cited Blackmun's dissenting opinion (with which Brennan and Marshall concur, inclined to tolerate the limited use for established ceremonial and liturgical purposes) whereas the majority reinforces itself with the U.S. majority opinion (that forbids all use of psychotropic substances).
Here it is interesting to note the inconsistencies that can emerge when using foreign interpretive models. Firstly, the two cases used in the last example although similar are not identical. Using hallucinogenic substances is not entirely the same as using cannabis (for health effects and invasiveness of the practice). The case similarity is even more questionable in the first case cited (Drug Mart). Secondly, in the majority opinion the South African judges argue positively making use of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling where the South African Court had stated that the American system and interpretations (although consistently analysed as an important reference model) were not compatible with the South African system due to the many asymmetries between the two systems 35 . In this case, the majority opinion shows a strong degree of contradiction, because it is mostly grounded in the majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, according to which full recognition of religious freedom based on the First Amendment does not lead to the exemption for religious reasons from 'civic obligations' (such as paying taxes, provisions regarding health and public safety, obligatory vaccinations, norms on narcotics, labour rights, prohibition of child labour, inhuman and degrading treatment, etc. 36 ).
The argumentative technique of probative importation is also used for reinforcing (or legitimising) the choice of interests or principles at stake in a particular dispute made by constitutional judges (the so-called interpretive pre-orientation). This is a notoriously important operation because it can be the basis for resolving the problem of constitutionality submitted to the judges 37 . Therefore, it is not difficult to imagine how the use of extra-systemic parameters as a reinforcement or justification of the judges' choices in defining the topography of the case can become a means of persuasion regarding the efficacy of the choices made. Furthermore, this manner of importing foreign parameters was frequently found in the analysis of South African rulings.
An exemplary case is Laugh It Off Promotion CC v. South African Breweries International of 27 th May 2005 38 . The appellant was the company Laugh It Off Promotion which altered images or words of registered brands partially as a commercial activity. The purpose, beyond simply 39 In the case in question the appellants were convicted for violating laws on brands due to a T-shirt (produced and sold by them) on which the famous slogan of a very popular beer in South Africa 'Black Label' was substituted with 'Black Labour' while the colours and shape of the beer advertisement were unaltered. The clearly political purpose was to sensitise the public about labour exploitation (with very low salaries) today still very widespread in South Africa (and which is one of the main features of apartheid  194/1993).
In order to justify that the norms on intellectual property can be limited by freedom of expression, reinforcing (that is, probative) foreign parameters are used. The technique clearly emerges in the following excerpt from the judge drafting the decision (Moseneke): 'I have intimated earlier that Section 34 1c fails to be construed bearing in mind the entrenched free expression right under Section 16. The importance of freedom of expression has been articulated and underscored by this and other courts in this country and indeed in other open democracies and by its inclusion in international law instruments. Suffice it to repeat that freedom of expression is a vital incidence of human dignity, equal worth and freedom. It carries its own inherent worth and serves a collection of other intertwined constitutional ends in open and democratic societies '. 40 For the purpose of proving or reinforcing the decision to allow the principle of freedom of expression to 'react' with measures that regulate intellectual property, the Court cited a extensive number of decisions issued by the Supreme Courts of New Zealand, Canada, the United States, Namibia and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. 41 The foreign cases cited tended to reinforce the pre-orientation that the freedom of expression can place a limitation on intellectual property and supplied extra-systemic parameters according to which the aforementioned fundamental freedom played a central role in other 'open and democratic societies'. The doubt raised here is that in reality no clear comparison was made; the foreign rulings were simply imported into the South African pool of interpretation. The decisions were are not analysed, but simply used as reinforcement of a decision regarding the principles at stake. The 'audience' that the Court wished to 'persuade', if it should desire to refute the pre-orientation, should begin with criticising the pertinence of the cases presented so assertively by the Court.

The dialogue between Constitutional Courts: Hypothesis on legal and political scenarios
Some conclusive hypotheses regarding the political and legal scenarios of the circulation of interpretive paradigms can now be made. It would appear that a potentially important transformation of liberal democratic constitutionalism is taking place; the multiplication of the studies in this area indicates that constitutional scholarship has noticed that fundamental changes are underway. 42 important study of S. Choudhry, supra note 5, pp. 819-892, in which the author emphasizes the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia (in the famous and controversial Lawrence v. Texas, US, 539, 2003) according to which 'comparative analysis is inappropriate to the task of interpreting a Constitution' (p. 820). In this ruling, which declared unconstitutional the Texan law criminally punishing consensual homosexual sexual relations, the U.S. Supreme Court took into consideration the judgments of the Strasbourg Court, which has ruled in the same way in numerous cases (in particular, Justice Kennedy cites Dudgeon v. United Kingdom); this explains the violent reaction of Scalia, who had often expressed himself radically against the comparative constitutional references approach (as in Stanford v. Kentucky, 429 US, 1989). between different international jurisdictions (horizontal circulation), is a dynamic both known and discussed within the framework of ad hoc international criminal jurisdictions. International judges make use of different national criminal legal systems, though still in a rather asystematic manner and with an obvious lack of objectifying procedures. In international criminal justice there is, nevertheless, much perplexity with regards this methodology, especially concerning its scope. In addition to this, reference to doctrine and jurisprudence from different countries takes place at 'random'. Since neither limits nor, more importantly, criteria of predictability of the national laws called upon have been set out, the methodology of judges in international criminal jurisdictions often turns into an evident imbalance of the right to defence. Some commentators have noted how the use of comparative law in international criminal jurisdictions often becomes a form of ex-post legitimacy of the judges' decision-making reasoning (

72
First of all, we can imagine the emergence of cultural and linguistic areas where osmosis between systems takes place or the development of relationships between geopolitical areas sharing a common historical and political legacy (such as the dialogue between the courts of countries formerly part of the same colonial dominion, such as the Commonwealth). We could then deduce that the choice of dialogue partners is not grounded in legal and systemic compatibility, but in historical reasons or political and cultural influence. In addition to this, the format of the common law system allows judges greater familiarity with case studies and precedents from other common law jurisdictions. These elements could legitimately allow one to foresee the creation of a common law country bloc able to develop legal, political, economic and diplomatic influence on countries of a different legal tradition. Even though scholarship has for some time stressed the convergence in diverse legal fields, a contrast between 'legal families' can currently be seen in the political and legal dynamics of international criminal jurisdictions (limited, however, to criminal and criminal procedural matters). 43 According to scholars and international analysts the flow of jurisprudence circulation today, however, demonstrates a sizable volume of exchange between courts of common law countries and civil law ones, alleviating doubts about the creation of an opposition between legal and cultural enclaves. 44 Secondly, there is some perplexity as to the limits to using foreign law since it can create inconsistency and confusion within a system. In fact, the study of this practice must consider the underlying risks regarding the arbitrary way in which judges are free to choose a system or judgment by investigating the problem of compatibility between the systems whose legal orientation is being adopted and those that import interpretive solutions. 45 A further concern, whose validity is yet to be verified, is that this practice may hide an argumentative ploy capable of fabricating the effect of the audience's adherence to the interpreter. 46 National constitutional judges could simply confirm their auctoritas by aligning themselves with the interpretations of judges from powerful democracies in accordance with a somewhat surreptitious rationale of subjection.
For this reason, in the future, it will be important to evaluate if the spread of interpretive paradigms implies (a) subjection, (b) mimesis, (c) affiliation with cultural and economic zones, (d) sharing of historical and political ties, or (e) derivation of constitutional formal models. In this last case, we should ascertain whether the phenomenon is a particular feature of those systems having a new generation Bill of Rights. In fact, if we consider how the lists of fundamental rights of Canada, Israel, South Africa and also Hong Kong are strongly linked to the circulation of models and how these are the legal systems that are witness to a more developed practice of borrowing interpretive paradigms, we could legitimately ask ourselves whether constitutional judges, when interpreting their respective Bill of Rights, do not autonomously sense the need to check the views of their foreign 'colleagues' whose constitutions are endowed with similar recent charters of fundamental rights? 47 It is, therefore, important to investigate the patterns of 'migration', checking to see whether they are not a walk along a kind of 'pilgrimage route' with obligatory stops at the 'sanctuaries' of contemporary constitutionalism.
To conclude this picture of the scenarios, bottom up globalisation should be mentioned. The notion refers to putting systems (and interpretive, cultural and legal particularities) into global communication where the judges become principal actors (sometimes autonomously and without ties to governmental activities or foreign policy). In this perspective, circulation of interpretive paradigms becomes another force (from the bottom) that pushes towards the creation of interdependence and connection between systems outside the mechanisms strictly controlled by governments and legislatures.
Finally, the role of technology should also be investigated. If one believes that the practice under examination is not conceivable in its current state without tools of computerised communication, we can find support for this hypothesis in the fact that many bodies of constitutional justice created after the post-communist transitions in Central Eastern Europe immediately built efficient websites that made national constitutional jurisprudence available in lingua francas as a sort of international political legitimacy. In this respect, it is worth visiting the website of the Supreme Court of Estonia, which was already running halfway through the 90s and the website of the Hungarian Court. Confirmation of this is exemplified by the judgment in which the Hungarian Constitutional Court abolished capital punishment in 1990, declaring it unconstitu-tional under the new legal system. 48 As will be shown, the judicial reasoning contained in the court decision began a significant 'migratory journey' as an example of an alternative interpretive vision to the reasoning of the U.S. Supreme Court. The most important traces of this decision (which demonstrate the penetration of the Hungarian interpretive paradigm) can be found in an analogous ruling of the South African Constitutional Court (mentioned above) which decided on the same delicate issue in 1995.
In conclusion, the consequences of legal interpretation based on extra-systemic parameters can be evaluated by borrowing the political metaphor of an Italian philosopher, Massimo Cacciari. 49 He uses the idea of an archipelago to define the type of mutual interdependence between cultural, linguistic, national or ethnic groups in Europe. As we have seen, the horizontal communication between constitutional systems is growing and it is developing outside of international and supranational pact based entities. If this is true, we could hypothesise that there is a movement from an international community towards a Constitutional community. In the former, legal systems are perceived as islands. They communicate through positive legal norms. In the latter, the islands are perceived as part of an archipelago (made up of distinct units but belonging to the same 'Constitutional community'). In the archipelago, inter-systemic legal relations are no longer solely founded on 'authorisations' of positive law (treaties, conventions etc.), but they can also evolve from the comparative method based on the circulation of legal arguments and extra-systemic parameters.