291If we look at the legal systems of the countries discussed in this book, many doubts can be raised as to whether any comparison may be made between them. They operate in different constitutional contexts, they belong to different legal cultures, and they must face various challenges, or the same challenges in different ways. Even the same constitutional courts rarely deal with the same questions, which makes any comparison difficult. Furthermore, the study of the practice of the European courts introduces new elements to the comparison, since they do not operate within a nation-state framework, and their primary function is not the judicial review of legal acts. Hence, because of this, it is important to clarify what the basis for the present comparison actually is. As we showed in the introductory chapter, our work deals with the major trends in constitutional adjudication, seeking answers to questions whether the contemporary challenges, that frequently put unusual or even unprecedented pressure on the courts, trigger changes in constitutional jurisprudence or not. That is, whether or not these social developments have led to the replacement or thorough modification of previously established judicial constructions and interpretive practices. In other words, the judicial strategies are the focus of our attention. We think that these strategies can rationally be examined and the constitutional imprints of the crisis situations in the various legal systems (including the European legal regimes) can be compared with each other.