Evidence-based judicial review of legislation in divided states: the Belgian case

This paper presents a case study on the Belgian Constitutional Court to examine why courts in some countries are more inclined to review legislation on an evidentiary basis than courts in others. It analyses how the Court, when assessing Parliamentary Acts, deals with scientific evidence used in the legislative process or the lack thereof. Subsequently, four hypotheses are examined that might explain the limited use of scientific evidence in the jurisprudence of the Belgian Court. Of these hypotheses, the judges' expertise, the infancy of better regulation programmes, and the political context seem to offer the most plausible explanations.