is necessary to transform a system in such fundamental ways as to justify the word convergence being used? In the formation of the mixed character, when is the ultimate moment? Would the introduction of principles such as ' legitimate expectations'or proportionality, these being the main illustrations used by scholars, have an impact so far reaching that public law in the common law world would change its character, or is it only structural change that would have such implications, that is, for example, the introduction of a separate court hierarchy for administrative law disputes or a written constitution or written procedure(a Code of Civil Procedure)? When can we talk of"cultural reorientating"? How forceful is the argument that transplants'should be avoided but"cross-fertilisat desirable, when in most transmigrations of law the process is a one-way trajectory? Even in cross-fertilisation, there is at least one if not a number of transpositions. The fact is that "cross seldom materialises and it isfertilisation' that takes place. Pollenisation' may be a better word though, since fertilisation aims at the soil, but"pollenisation'at the product. 10 4.I Public lan: Constitutional Cappelletti has analysed trad itions of judicial review of constitutionality in the contemporary world and has given examples of the classical models and of mixes, and has shown that though historically the distinctions were clear, today they are blurred. II The established trad itions in jud icial review of constitutionality can be studied in two broad types. In the first, decentralised, diffuse, incidental, inter partes, concrete, legitimating and retroactive ex tunc, and in the second centralised, concentrated, principaliter, erga omnes, abstract, invalidating and prospective ex nunc. All others, developed under the influence of these two original models, are intermed iary systems. A spectrum contains no review, constitutional review by a special court(the Germanic model for post-review, and the French model for pre-review ) constitutional review by all courts(the American model), and constitutional review in view of the ECHR only( the Netherlands and the peculiar system of positive construction of legislation by courts to avoid incompatibility and restricted to a declaration of incompatibility, set up by the Human Rights Act 1998 in the UK). These could also be viewed as preventative, consultative, indirect or explicit. These are not all pure ord models. There are some 'mixed systems here. Today there are more and more mixed'and intermediary systems developing in addition to the original intermediary systems such as the Mexican, the Irish and the Israeli. If so, which new ones are 'mixed ' and what are their characteristics? How much have they influenced each other? This is an interesting line of inquiry for comparative lawyers looking at cross-fertilisations and mixed legal systems and mixed areas of law In addition to judicial review of constitutionality, another subject of inquiry in this context is the place of human rights in the different constitutional frameworks Now, transposition and fertilisation can be analysed within the area of constructing constitutions also, since most developing constitutional systems have adopted institutions norms and constitutional models from elsewhere both as to content and as to structure loIt may of course be argued that the soil will be changed and possibly enriched by the fertilisation M. Cappelletti, Judicial Review in the Contemporary World, Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, 1971is necessary to transform a system in such fundamental ways as to justify the word ‘convergence’ being used? In the formation of the mixed character, when is the ultimate moment? Would the introduction of principles such as ‘legitimate expectations’ or ‘proportionality’, these being the main illustrations used by scholars, have an impact so far reaching that public law in the common law world would change its character, or is it only structural change that would have such implications, that is, for example, the introduction of a separate court hierarchy for administrative law disputes or a written constitution or written procedure (a Code of Civil Procedure)? When can we talk of ‘cultural reorientating’? How forceful is the argument that ‘transplants’ should be avoided but ‘cross-fertilisation’ is desirable, when in most transmigrations of law the process is a one-way trajectory? Even in cross-fertilisation, there is at least one if not a number of transpositions. The fact is that ‘cross’ seldom materialises and it is ‘fertilisation’ that takes place. ‘Pollenisation’ may be a better word though, since fertilisation aims at the soil, but ‘pollenisation’ at the product.10 4.1 Public law: Constitutional Cappelletti has analysed traditions of judicial review of constitutionality in the contemporary world and has given examples of the classical models and of mixes, and has shown that, though historically the distinctions were clear, today they are blurred.11 The established traditions in judicial review of constitutionality can be studied in two broad types. In the first, decentralised, diffuse, incidental, inter partes, concrete, legitimating and retroactive ex tunc, and in the second centralised, concentrated, principaliter, erga omnes, abstract, invalidating and prospective ex nunc. All others, developed under the influence of these two original models, are intermediary systems. A spectrum contains no review, constitutional review by a special court (the Germanic model for post-review, and the French model for pre-review), constitutional review by all courts (the American model), and constitutional review in view of the ECHR only (the Netherlands and the peculiar system of positive construction of legislation by courts to avoid incompatibility and restricted to a declaration of incompatibility, set up by the Human Rights Act 1998 in the UK). These could also be viewed as preventative, consultative, indirect or explicit. These are not all pure ‘ordinary’ models. There are some ‘mixed’ systems here. Today there are more and more ‘mixed’ and intermediary systems developing in addition to the original intermediary systems such as the Mexican, the Irish and the Israeli. If so, which new ones are ‘mixed’ and what are their characteristics? How much have they influenced each other? This is an interesting line of inquiry for comparative lawyers looking at cross-fertilisations and mixed legal systems and mixed areas of law. In addition to judicial review of constitutionality, another subject of inquiry in this context is the place of human rights in the different constitutional frameworks. Now, transposition and fertilisation can be analysed within the area of constructing constitutions also, since most developing constitutional systems have adopted institutions, norms and constitutional models from elsewhere both as to content and as to structure. 10It may of course be argued that the soil will be changed and possibly enriched by the fertilisation. 11M. Cappelletti, Judicial Review in the Contemporary World, Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, 1971