There has been extensive literature on proportionality that praises its global spread and delves into its embedment in domestic contexts. Through a series of case studies from around the world, however, this Article shows judicial practices countering, explicitly or implicitly, the popular notion of globalization of proportionality. In Canada and the United Kingdom, the Supreme Courts have directed the courts to depart from proportionality and rely on unreasonableness as a default standard of judicial review of administrative decisions. Courts in Hong Kong and Taiwan have developed various levels of intensity of review associated with proportionality; the lowest of which transforms proportionality, a rights protective doctrine, into a form of weak reasonableness review or deferential rational-basis review. The Chinese courts have fashioned proportionality into a tool to justify illegal government actions and advance authoritarian projects. This Article describes these judicial practices as counter currents of proportionality and argues that they are not merely variations of proportionality used in local contexts; instead, they have either deserted the doctrine entirely or contradicted its core features: (1) structured analytical procedure and (2) high-level human rights protection. In response to these counter currents, this Article proposes that once a court adopts proportionality in its adjudication, it must adhere to the structured analytical framework and insist on a minimum rigor of this doctrine.
