A model of constitutional review in which courts can assess legislation against rights but the legislature keeps the final word, for example through declarations of incompatibility or override clauses.
In more detail
Examples include the UK Human Rights Act 1998, under which courts may declare a statute incompatible with Convention rights without invalidating it, and section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which lets legislatures override certain rights for renewable five-year periods. Supporters see it as a dialogue between courts and parliaments that answers the democratic objection raised by critics such as Jeremy Waldron. Sceptics argue that it either collapses into strong review in practice or offers weak protection.