ABSTRACT
The previous chapter addressed the alleged irrationality of balancing in the face of the theoretical challenge of incommensurability. But critics of balancing do more than point out theoretical impossibilities. They also critique how balancing functions in judicial practice. In this chapter, I will deal with the most salient practical obstacles to balancing human rights: alleged subjectivity in balancing, the impact of intuitive reasoning on balancing, the lack of coherence of balancing decisions and the occurrence of ‘preferential framing’ effects in the construction of balancing exercises.
