Deference To The Administration In Judicial Review

This book investigates judicial deference to the administration in judicial review, a concept and legal practice that can be found to a greater or lesser degree in every constitutional system. In each system, deference functions differently, because the positioning of the judiciary with regard to the separation of powers, the role of the courts as a mechanism of checks and balances, and the scope of judicial review differ. In addition, the way deference works within the constitutional system itself is complex, multi-faceted and often covert. Although judicial deference to the administration is a topical theme in comparative administrative law, a general examination of national systems is still lacking. As such, a theoretical and empirical review is called for. Accordingly, this book presents national reports from 15 jurisdictions, ranging from Argentina, Canada and the US, to the EU. Constituting the outcome of the 20th General Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law, held in Fukuoka, Japan in July 2018, it offers a valuable and unique resource for the study of comparative administrative law.

This book investigates judicial deference to the administration in judicial review, a concept and legal practice that can be found to a greater or lesser degree in every constitutional system. In each system, deference functions differently, because the positioning of the judiciary with regard to the separation of powers, the role of the courts as a mechanism of checks and balances, and the scope of judicial review differ. In addition, the way deference works within the constitutional system itself is complex, multi-faceted and often covert. Although judicial deference to the administration is a topical theme in comparative administrative law, a general examination of national systems is still lacking. As such, a theoretical and empirical review is called for. Accordingly, this book presents national reports from 15 jurisdictions, ranging from Argentina, Canada and the US, to the EU. Constituting the outcome of the 20th General Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law, held in Fukuoka, Japan in July 2018, it offers a valuable and unique resource for the study of comparative administrative law.

Paul Daly develops a theory concerning the appropriate allocation of authority between courts and administrative bodies.

This book explores convergences of legal doctrine despite jurisdictional, cultural and political barriers, as well as divergences due to such barriers, examining topics that are of vital importance to contemporary legal scholars. Written by leading experts from all continents, its 26 chapters present a comparative analysis of cutting-edge legal issues of the 21st century. While each of the countries covered stands alone as a sovereign state, in a technologically advanced world their disparate systems nonetheless show comparable strategies in dealing with complex legal issues. Several of the chapters show how, in addition to state normative production and state adjudication, a growing panoply of non-state instruments and non-state adjudication are becoming more and more central to the legal field. This book is a key addition to the library of any scholar wanting to keep abreast of the major trends in contemporary law. Representing the current state of law in a vast range of areas, it covers each topic from a comparative perspective. Cet ouvrage, en examinant des sujets d'une importance vitale pour les juristes contemporains, traite des convergences de la doctrine juridique malgré les barrières juridictionnelles, culturelles et politiques ainsi que des divergences dues à ces barrières. Écrits par d'éminents universitaires de tous les continents, ses 26 chapitres présentent une analyse comparative de sujets juridiques majeurs du 21e siècle. Dans un monde technologiquement avancé, bien que chaque pays analysé dans cet ouvrage demeure autonome en tant qu'État souverain, l’ensemble des systèmes disparates présente néanmoins des stratégies comparables pour traiter des questions juridiques complexes. En outre, plusieurs chapitres montrent comment, en plus de la production normative et de la résolution des différends étatiques, la panoplie croissante de différents types d'instruments non étatiques et de résolution non étatique des différends devient de plus en plus centrale dans la sphère juridique. Cet ouvrage est un ajout essentiel à la bibliothèque de tout universitaire souhaitant se tenir au courant des principales tendances du droit contemporain. Il couvre un vaste domaine de sujets traités d'un point de vue comparatif et représente l'état actuel du droit dans chaque domaine.

A new framework for understanding contemporary administrative law, through a comparative analysis of case law from Australia, Canada, England, Ireland, and New Zealand. The author argues that the field is structured by four values: individual self-realisation, good administration, electoral legitimacy and decisional autonomy.

This seminal book presents a fundamental reconsideration of modern American administrative law. According to Christopher Edley, the guiding principle in this field is that courts should apply legal doctrines to control the discretion of unelected bureaucrats. In practice, however, these doctrines simply give unelected judges largely unconstrained--and inescapable--discretion. Assessed on its own terms, says Edley, administrative law is largely a failure. He discussed why and how this is so and argues that law should abandon its obsession with bureaucratic discretion and pursue instead the direct promotion of sound governance. Edley demonstrates that legal analyses of separation of powers and of judicial oversight of agencies implicitly use three decision-making paradigms: politics, scientific expertise, and adjudicatory fairness. Conventional wisdom maintains, for example, that judges should hesitate to question the political choices of legislators and the expertise of administrators, but need not be so deferential in addressing questions of law. Such judicial efforts to police governance have largely failed because, as Edley shows in several contexts, they attempt to appraise decision-making paradigms as though they were separable when in fact the important decisions of both judges and political officials combine elements of politics, science, and fairness. According to Edley, unsustainable boundaries among these paradigms cannot be a satisfactory basis for deciding when a court should interfere. Law must stop focusing on separation of powers and instead direct attention to such issues as bureaucratic incompetence, systemic agency delay, and political bias.

Should courts be able to scrutinise primary legislation for its compatibility with human rights? Focusing on the value of the separation of powers, Dimitrios Kyritsis offers an innovative discussion of the role of constitutional courts and the scope of judicial review, and a normative theory of the constitutional review of legislative action.

Explores how courts vary the depth of scrutiny in judicial review and the virtues of different approaches.