Judicial Review of Public Power in Poland

2017 ◽  
pp. 53-66
Author(s):  
Michał Jackowski
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Power

scholarly journals Sustainability Symbol of Justice

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 82
Author(s):  
Noor Farihah Mohd Noor
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Public Power ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
Judicial Scrutiny ◽  
The Right

Quality of life has very much to do with being sustainable. In a country where development and money is the means of progressing making profits, are unavoidable. But does the quest for progress hamper sustainability? Sustainability is important because it reflects a balance between freedom and power, independence and authority, rich and poor, justices and oppression. We have seen much oppression that emerges from exercising public power. Despite the formation of institution like integrity bodies, separate organizations to combat corruptions, tribunals and the like, yet public oppression never subside. Rudeness, unwillingness to treat the complainant as a person with rights; refusal to answer reasonable question; neglecting to inform complainant on request of her entitlement; knowingly giving misleading or inadequate advice; ignoring valid advice or overruling consideration which would produce an uncomfortable result for the overuler; offering no redress or manifestly disproportionate redress; showing bias on colour or whatever ground; refusing to inform adequately the right of appeal ; failure to mitigate the effect of rigid adherence to which it can produce manifestly inadequate treatment are all forms of malfeasance of the modern days. The focus of this paper thus is to look at the possible ways of combatting bad administration via judicial review of administrative action. What’s interesting is the ability of the court to tease out the complicated issues so that justice could be delivered. Justice is far-reaching if it can be exercised beyond merely the judicial scrutiny. Being able to address the lack of justice is in fact a reflection of sustainability and high quality of life.

Holding International Institutions Accountable: The Complementary Role of Non-Judicial Oversight Mechanisms and Judicial Review

2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. 1987-2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erika de Wet
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
International Institutions ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Public Power ◽  
Territorial State ◽  
Current Contribution ◽  
Complementary Role ◽  
State Actors

The current contribution focuses on the oversight over international institutions, which is used as a synonym for the accountability of such entities. It departs from the principle that all entities exercising public authority have to account for the exercise thereof. The growing power of international institutions in areas that were formerly regulated domestically, along with the growing impact of their conduct on (the rights of) States and non-State actors alike, has thus far not been matched by a shift in accountability relationships beyond those applicable within the confines of the territorial State. Understandably therefore the calls for the accountability of international institutions have increased in recent years, as it is seen as essential for ensuring their credibility and for securing control over public power.

scholarly journals Against Interpretation as an Alternative to Invalidation

2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-68
Author(s):  
Scott Stephenson
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Traditional Method ◽  
Public Power ◽  
Alternative Means ◽  
Rights Issues

This article evaluates the rise of interpretation as an alternative means of judicially enforcing legislative compliance with rights. Instead of the traditional method where courts are empowered to invalidate statutes that are found to be incompatible with rights, the alternative empowers courts to interpret statutes in a manner that renders them compatible with rights. It argues that interpretation emerged as an alternative to invalidation among both constitutional reformers and judges in Australia (and elsewhere) in the 1990s and 2000s because interpretation was seen as a way of addressing democratic concerns about rights-based judicial review and as a less confrontational method of resolving rights issues. The article puts forward an argument for invalidation over interpretation on the basis that interpretation’s comparative appeal is not particularly strong—there are alternative ways of addressing the democratic concerns, and the connection between invalidation and confrontation is weak—and that invalidation is a more transparent, and therefore accountable, exercise of public power than interpretation.

The Canadian Charter's Override Clause: Lessons for Israel

2016 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorraine E Weinrib
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Detailed Account ◽  
Political Leaders ◽  
Public Power ◽  
Canadian Charter ◽  
Political Dynamics ◽  
Constitutional State

This article considers the role of legislative override clauses in the Canadian and Israeli rights-protecting systems, which share many institutional features. After providing a detailed account of the adoption of the override clause in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as a compromise between legislative supremacy and final judicial review, the article analyses the distinctive and unexpected political dynamics generated by this compromise, including its effect on the exercise of public power and elections. Although adopted to appease political leaders who opposed the Charter on substantive and institutional grounds, the legislative override has to date worked to legitimate judicial review and bring Canada further into the model of the modern constitutional state. The article then considers the lessons that Israel might learn from this analysis in the light of proposals to adopt an override clause to apply to a wider range of fundamental rights and to operate against Supreme Court judgments.

scholarly journals Judicial Review of the Exercise of Public Power

2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 193-224
Author(s):  
Michael Sinclair
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Power

Judicial Review of the Exercise of Public Power

scholarly journals Sustainability Symbol of Justice

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 82
Author(s):  
Noor Farihah Mohd Noor
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Public Power ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
Judicial Scrutiny ◽  
The Right

Quality of life has very much to do with being sustainable. In a country where development and money is the means of progressing making profits, are unavoidable. But does the quest for progress hamper sustainability? Sustainability is important because it reflects a balance between freedom and power, independence and authority, rich and poor, justices and oppression. We have seen much oppression that emerges from exercising public power. Despite the formation of institution like integrity bodies, separate organizations to combat corruptions, tribunals and the like, yet public oppression never subside. Rudeness, unwillingness to treat the complainant as a person with rights; refusal to answer reasonable question; neglecting to inform complainant on request of her entitlement; knowingly giving misleading or inadequate advice; ignoring valid advice or overruling consideration which would produce an uncomfortable result for the overuler; offering no redress or manifestly disproportionate redress; showing bias on colour or whatever ground; refusing to inform adequately the right of appeal ; failure to mitigate the effect of rigid adherence to which it can produce manifestly inadequate treatment are all forms of malfeasance of the modern days. The focus of this paper thus is to look at the possible ways of combatting bad administration via judicial review of administrative action. What’s interesting is the ability of the court to tease out the complicated issues so that justice could be delivered. Justice is far-reaching if it can be exercised beyond merely the judicial scrutiny. Being able to address the lack of justice is in fact a reflection of sustainability and high quality of life.

scholarly journals The Public/Private Distinction in Roncarelli v. Duplessis

2011 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 461-490
Author(s):  
Derek McKee
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Private Sphere ◽  
Late Nineteenth Century ◽  
Classical Liberalism ◽  
Public Power ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
Private Power ◽  
Multiple Meanings

Roncarelli v. Duplessis is remembered for the way it imposed limits on public power. But in imposing these limits, it relied heavily on public/private distinctions inherited from nineteenth-century classical liberalism. The judges invoked public/private distinctions to identify the damage Roncarelli suffered, to consider the purposes for which discretion could be validly exercised, and to determine whether Duplessis had exceeded his authority. The author argues that this proliferation of public/private concepts echoes the general indeterminacy of these ideas in liberal legal thought. Although the state/civil society distinction is central to liberal notions of public and private, it coexists with parallel thought structures, such as market/family, civilization/state, and, in Canada, dominion/province. These multiple meanings of the public and the private are mutually reinforcing. They also underwrite myths about the natural, consensual, and neutral nature of the private sphere, making it more difficult to think about controlling the exercise of private power. Although ideas about the public and the private have changed since the late nineteenth century (and since 1959), they display a remarkable persistence. Public/private distinctions can be observed at work in contemporary administrative law, in debates about which bodies are subject to judicial review, and which kinds of decisions are subject to judicial review on grounds of procedural fairness.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document