American Administrative Law—A Synoptic Survey

1979 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 413-426
Author(s):  
Bernard Schwartz
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Geographical Area ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
Administrative Agencies ◽  
Delegation Of Powers

Like the ancient geographical area, American administrative law is also divided into three parts. In the American, as in the British conception, administrative law is concerned with powers and remedies and answers the following questions: (1) What powers may be vested in administrative agencies? (2) What are the limits of those powers? (3) What are the ways in which agencies are kept within those limits?In answering these questions American administrative law deals with the delegation of powers to administrative agencies; the manner in which those powers must be exercised (emphasizing almost exclusively the procedural requirements imposed on agencies); and judicial review of administrative action. These form the three basic divisions of American administrative law: (1) delegation of powers, (2) administrative procedure, and (3) judicial review. This article will seek to present a synoptic survey of these three subjects. Its aim is to present an overview of American administrative law to the Israeli jurist, enabling him to understand the essentials of a system that is, at the same time, so similar to and so different from his own.

Standards of Judicial Review of Administrative Action (1890–1910) in the Austro-Hungarian Empire

2021 ◽  
pp. 41-72
Author(s):  
Angela Ferrari Zumbini
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Public Affairs ◽  
Main Theme ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
General Principles Of Law ◽  
Liberal Approach ◽  
The Right

This chapter argues that, if France has been the home of administrative courts, Austria has greatly contributed to the development of administrative law with regard to administrative procedure. Thanks to the Austrian Administrative Court, established in 1875, administrative law has been increasingly important in the regulation of public affairs. The chapter analyses the causes, development, and effects of these features. One main theme is, of course, the scope and purpose of judicial review of administrative action. In this respect, the chapter shows the growth of litigation and the liberal approach followed by the Court. Moreover, the role of the Court as lawmaker is examined in the light of the general principles of law that it developed. . Such principles included legality and procedural fairness, with particular regard to the right to a hearing and the duty to give reasons. Considered as a whole, they required public administrations to act reasonably rather than arbitrarily. Finally, it was judge-made law that constituted the basis for the codification of 1925.

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in Spain

2021 ◽  
pp. 72-74
Author(s):  
Oriol Mir
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Fully Integrated ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
Spanish Constitution ◽  
Administrative Jurisdiction ◽  
The Right ◽  
Judicial Protection

This chapter discusses administrative procedure and judicial review in Spain. The Spanish Constitution of 1978 (CE) devotes two central provisions to judicial review of administrative action. Article 106(1) CE, located in Part IV on government and administration, establishes that 'The Courts control the power to issue regulations and to ensure that the rule of law prevails in administrative action, as well as to ensure that the latter is subordinated to the ends which justify it'. On the other hand, Article 24(1) CE enshrines the fundamental right to effective judicial protection, which also includes protection against administrative action: 'Every person has the right to obtain the effective protection of the judges and the courts in the exercise of his or her legitimate rights and interests, and in no case may he go undefended'. Judicial review is usually performed by specific courts fully integrated into the judiciary, the so-called jurisdicción contencioso-administrativa (administrative jurisdiction), competent to review administrative action subject to Spanish administrative law.

scholarly journals Regards sur le droit administratif suisse

2005 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 703-779
Author(s):  
Pierre Issalys
Keyword(s):  
Social Security ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
General Scheme ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Special Position ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
The Law

Looking at Swiss administrative law from a Quebec perspective, this paper outlines some aspects of the Swiss system that provide useful models or references for the discussion and resolution of current issues in Canadian and Quebec administrative law. These issues are identified as (1) the proliferation of independent administrative agencies, and the means to control or at least systematize the growth of such structures ; (2) the desirability and feasibility of enacting general standards of procedure for administrative action ; (3) the simplification of remedies in the field of judicial review of administrative action ; (4) the desirability and feasibility of allocating judicial review powers to a specialized court, either within or outside the Superior Court ; and (5) the desirability and form of a procedure allowing for political intervention in the decision-making process of independent agencies. In the light of these issues, the paper describes the allocation of review functions between administrative and judicial bodies in Swiss federal law. The structure and activity of the Swiss Federal Court (Tribunal fédéral), and especially of the division of the Court that deals with most administrative law cases, are outlined in some more detail. A short historical sketch leads to a discussion of the corresponding features of the law in some of the cantons, and to consideration of the special position given to social security matters in the general scheme of administrative law. The paper then focusses on administrative action itself, commenting on the most significant provisions in the Federal Administrative Procedure Act (Loi fédérale sur la procédure administrative) of 1968. Special attention is paid to the process of review within the administration, up to the level of the federal cabinet (Conseil fédéral). Corresponding provisions in the law of some of the cantons are also briefly discussed. The description of the federal review process is then completed by an outline of the procedure for judicial review of administrative action by the Federal Court (Recours de droit administrative). Finally, notice is again taken of the special position of social security as regards administrative procedure. The paper draws attention, in its concluding part, to the most interesting insights provided by Swiss law into the current problems of Canadian and Quebec administrative law. The growth of administrative tribunals has been brought under control by structural arrangements, especially in the field of social security. The introduction of general standards of procedure has brought greater uniformity and clarity, has emphasized the unity of administrative process including the review phase before administrative or judicial authorities, and has strenghtened the rule of law over government action. The existence of a single procedure to invoke judicial review eases access to the court. While in many cases review by the court is excluded, these exclusions have to be specific, and leave full opportunity for review within the administration, with adequate safeguards provided by the Administrative Procedure Act. Specialization occurs within the Federal Court, and does not involve a rigid separation between judges applying administrative law and judges applying other branches of the law, as in France or Germany. Finally, ultimate political control over certain types of decisions is admitted as a part of life in Swiss federal law, but is at the same time subjected to a quasi-judicial procedure which makes it an acknowledged source of administrative justice.

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in France

2021 ◽  
pp. 50-52
Author(s):  
Delphine Costa
Keyword(s):  
Public Administration ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Judicial Remedy ◽  
Individual Decisions ◽  
Laws And Regulations ◽  
Administrative Justice

This chapter describes administrative procedure and judicial review in France. In French public law, no constitutional provision provides for judicial review of administrative measures. Nor is there a convention providing for judicial review of administrative measures. This is only envisaged by the laws and regulations, in particular the Administrative Justice Code and the Code of Relations between the Public and the Administration. The administrative courts exercise extensive control over the acts or measures of the public administration, including both individual decisions and regulatory acts, but some are nonetheless beyond judicial review. Where an act or measure is contested on procedural grounds, judicial review takes place only under certain conditions: the procedural defect must have deprived the applicant of a guarantee or it must have influenced the meaning of the decision taken. Two types of judicial remedy exist in administrative law: it is therefore up to the applicant to limit their application before the administrative judge.

Proceduralism and Automation

2020 ◽  
pp. 275-298 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol Harlow ◽  
Richard Rawlings
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Paradigm Change ◽  
Technological Revolution ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
The Impact

In this chapter, we argue that administrative procedure has become a central organising concept for administrative law. Our first theme is the steady proceduralisation of public administration experienced in recent years, in the framework of a relationship between courts and administration which we present as a two-way, non-hierarchical process. We look first at internal drivers to proceduralisation emanating from administration, notably the managerial reforms of the 1980s and the rise of regulation as a standard governance technique. We then turn to the contemporary case law of judicial review, focussing on the judicial response to, and stimulus for, administrative proceduralism. Our second theme is the idea of procedures as a repository for values and of values as an important, though often subliminal, driver of administrative procedure. We look at the potential for exchange as well as dissonance between public administration and administrative law. Our third theme concerns challenges to administrative law from the technological revolution currently under way. The impact of automation on public administration was at first rather modest; today, however, technology is taking great leaps forward—from computerisation to artificial intelligence and beyond. The innovations have so far been welcomed as beneficial—faster and more consistent administration, swifter and less costly courts and tribunals. It is time to recognise that we are facing a paradigm change, in which key values and procedures of administrative law, such as transparency, accountability, individuation, and due process, will need to be supported and sustained.

The Reasonableness of Proportionality in the Australian Administrative Law Context

2015 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-90
Author(s):  
Janina Boughey
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
High Court ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality ◽  
Prevailing View

Although the High Court has never ruled on the issue, the prevailing view has been that unless parliaments enact bills of rights, the principle of proportionality does not and cannot play a role in judicial review of administrative decisions in Australia. Yet in Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li, a majority of the High Court hinted that this may not be the case. This article analyses the reasons for Australia's longstanding reluctance to embrace proportionality in the administrative law context, and whether the decision in Li has altered this position. It then explores overseas developments in proportionality review which reveal that the principle may take on many forms in the administrative law context, with differing implications for the separation of powers. The article finds that it might be possible to accommodate certain methods of applying proportionality within Australia's judicial review framework, but not without significant broader changes to judicial review of administrative action in Australia.

Defending Administrative Law

2021 ◽  
pp. 247-262
Author(s):  
Paul Daly
Keyword(s):  
Future Development ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Moral Foundations ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
The Core ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Interpretive Analysis ◽  
System P ◽  
Democratic System

This concluding chapter has two objectives. First, to demonstrate the robustness of the interpretation of contemporary administrative law presented in the preceding chapters, underscoring how useful this interpretive analysis is to understanding the law of judicial review of administrative action and guiding its future development. Second, the chapter defends the legitimacy of the core features of judicial review of administrative action, as these have been developed over the years by judges. In achieving these two objectives, the chapter relies on the criteria for testing the robustness of legal theories set out by Professor Stephen Smith in Contract Theory: fit, transparency, coherence and morality. The interpretation of contemporary administrative law described in this book fits the decided cases, it is reasonably transparent, it is coherent and it rests on recognisably moral foundations. In short, to conclude, contemporary administrative law facilitates the flourishing of individuals, of public administration and of the liberal democratic system.

Contextual review: the instinctive impulse and unstructured normativism in judicial review

Legal Studies ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Dean R Knight
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
Categorical Methods ◽  
Evaluative Judgement ◽  
Judicial Method

AbstractContextual review is a judicial method that rejects doctrinal or categorical methods to guide judicial supervision of administrative action. Judges are invited to assess the circumstances of a claim in the round without any doctrinal scaffolding to control the depth of scrutiny; in other words, intervention turns on an instinctive judicial impulse or overall evaluative judgement. This paper identifies and explains the various instances where this method is deployed in judicial review in Anglo-Commonwealth administrative law. The efficacy of this style of review is also evaluated, using rule of law standards to frame the analysis. Its increasing popularity is a worrying turn, in part because its reliance on unstructured normativism undermines the rule of law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document