Science & EU Risk Regulation: The Role of Experts in Decision-Making and Judicial Review

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto Alemanno
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Risk Regulation

scholarly journals God, Civic Virtue, and the American Way: Reconstructing Engel

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corinna Barrett Lain
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Social Movements ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Historical Record ◽  
Constitutional Change ◽  
School Prayer ◽  
Source Materials

If ever a decision embodied the heroic, counter majoritarian function we romantically ascribe to judicial review, it was the 1962 decision that struck down school prayer-Engel v. Vitale. Engel provoked more outrage, more congres- sionalattemptsto overturnit, andmoreattackson theJusticesthanperhapsany other decision in Supreme Court history. Indeed, Engel's counter majoritarian narrative is so strong that scholars have largely assumed that the historical record supports our romanticized conception of the case.Itdoesnot. Usingprimary source materials, this Article reconstructs the story of Engel, then explores the implicationsof this reconstructednarrative. Engel is not the countermajoritarian case it seems, but recognizing that allows us to see Engel for what it is: a re- markablyrich account of Supreme Court decisionmakingthatfurthers a number ofconversationsin constitutionallaw. Engel adds a new strandto a burgeoning body of scholarship on the power of culture in general,and social movements in particular,to generate constitutional change, It presents a rare glimpse of the Justices explicitly engaging in a dialogue with the American public. And it exposes qualitative differences in the forms that popular constitutionalism might take, with implications for the theory itself In the end, Engel still offers valuable in- sights about Supreme Court decision making and the role of judicial review. They just aren't the insights we tend to think

scholarly journals Evolving Role of the Courts: Constitutional Review of Legislation under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Charlotte Connell
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Direct Result ◽  
Legal Authority ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
New Paradigm ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
Orthodox View

<p>The constitutional landscape in New Zealand has undergone significant change over the last 20-35 years to improve the transparency and accountability of decision-making in the three branches of government. While most of these changes are a direct result of legislation, the constitutional role of the court has also been evolving and has seen the development of judicial review of the substance of the law for consistency with the New Zealand constitution. The orthodox view of the constitution is heavily critical of judicial, or constitutional, review of legislation by the courts and considers it to be an illegitimate encroachment on the domain of Parliament. This paper explores the legitimacy of constitutional review of legislation by the courts, specifically constitutional review of legislation under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (the Bill of Rights Act). To be legitimate, constitutional review by the courts must have both legal authority and be performed consistently with the constitution. This paper observes that s 5 of the Bill of Rights Act has been employed by the courts, without interference from Parliament, to review legislation for consistency with that Act and that the courts use the purposive approach to interpretation and the proportionality analysis to perform such review consistently with the constitution. Finally, the paper explores whether the developing jurisdiction of constitutional review necessitates a new paradigm to define the constitutional relationship between the courts and Parliament because the orthodox view of New Zealand's constitution is no longer supportable as the definitive position</p>

Uncertainty, Administrative Decision-Making and Judicial Review: The Courts’ Perspectives

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-33
Author(s):  
Fabrizio CAFAGGI ◽  
Paola IAMICELI
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Health Crisis ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
The Core ◽  
Power Shift ◽  
To Come

The role of courts has been rather significant in the COVID-19 pandemic, weakening the theory that the judiciary is not equipped to contribute to governing crisis management. Although differences exist across countries, depending on institutional varieties and political contexts, the analysis shows that, even in times of emergency, courts can provide the necessary balance to the power shift towards the executives. Both action and inaction affecting fundamental rights have been scrutinised, taking into account fundamental freedoms and the rule of law. Deference to political decision-making has varied across jurisdictions and across the multiple phases of the health crisis. Differences in the balancing have emerged compared to during ordinary times. Uncertainty has played a major role, calling for new strategies in regulatory, administrative and judicial decision-making and new balances between precaution and evidence-based approaches. The role of scientific evidence has been at the core of judicial review to ensure transparency and procedural accountability. Proportionality and reasonableness with multiple conceptual variants across countries have been used to scrutinise the legality of measures. Courts are likely to continue playing a significant but different role in the years to come, when liability issues and recovery measures will likely become the core of litigation.

scholarly journals Evolving Role of the Courts: Constitutional Review of Legislation under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Charlotte Connell
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Direct Result ◽  
Legal Authority ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
New Paradigm ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
Orthodox View

<p>The constitutional landscape in New Zealand has undergone significant change over the last 20-35 years to improve the transparency and accountability of decision-making in the three branches of government. While most of these changes are a direct result of legislation, the constitutional role of the court has also been evolving and has seen the development of judicial review of the substance of the law for consistency with the New Zealand constitution. The orthodox view of the constitution is heavily critical of judicial, or constitutional, review of legislation by the courts and considers it to be an illegitimate encroachment on the domain of Parliament. This paper explores the legitimacy of constitutional review of legislation by the courts, specifically constitutional review of legislation under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (the Bill of Rights Act). To be legitimate, constitutional review by the courts must have both legal authority and be performed consistently with the constitution. This paper observes that s 5 of the Bill of Rights Act has been employed by the courts, without interference from Parliament, to review legislation for consistency with that Act and that the courts use the purposive approach to interpretation and the proportionality analysis to perform such review consistently with the constitution. Finally, the paper explores whether the developing jurisdiction of constitutional review necessitates a new paradigm to define the constitutional relationship between the courts and Parliament because the orthodox view of New Zealand's constitution is no longer supportable as the definitive position</p>

EU Authorization of GMOs—The Failure of Deliberation

2019 ◽  
pp. 115-142
Author(s):  
Maria Weimer
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Discretionary Power ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Risk Regulation ◽  
Administrative Process ◽  
Gmo Risk Assessment

This chapter examines the extent to which epistemic, political, and diversity challenges arising from the authorization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are actually met in practice. It first considers how the European Commission defines the boundaries of its discretionary power as the risk administration of the internal market by contrasting Commission decision-making with two ideal models of administrative legitimation, the control, and the deliberative model. It then looks at two controversial cases of GMO authorization that illustrate the role of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in GMO risk assessment, as well as the scientification of the Commission’s risk management and the politicization of comitology decision-making. It also discusses the European Union General Court's responses to the administrative process of GMO authorizations. The chapter shows that top-down decision-making combined with scientification has contributed to the failure of deliberation in GMO risk regulation.

Elaborating the role of reflection and individual differences in the study of folk-economic beliefs

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Arceneaux
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Cognitive Processes ◽  
Evolutionary History ◽  
Behavioral Responses ◽  
History Of ◽  
Economic Beliefs

AbstractIntuitions guide decision-making, and looking to the evolutionary history of humans illuminates why some behavioral responses are more intuitive than others. Yet a place remains for cognitive processes to second-guess intuitive responses – that is, to be reflective – and individual differences abound in automatic, intuitive processing as well.

The Role of Shared Decision-Making in Audiologic Rehabilitation

2014 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Pryce ◽  
Amanda Hall
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Behavior Changes ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Treatment Information ◽  
Centered Care ◽  
Potential Risks ◽  
Audiologic Rehabilitation

Shared decision-making (SDM), a component of patient-centered care, is the process in which the clinician and patient both participate in decision-making about treatment; information is shared between the parties and both agree with the decision. Shared decision-making is appropriate for health care conditions in which there is more than one evidence-based treatment or management option that have different benefits and risks. The patient's involvement ensures that the decisions regarding treatment are sensitive to the patient's values and preferences. Audiologic rehabilitation requires substantial behavior changes on the part of patients and includes benefits to their communication as well as compromises and potential risks. This article identifies the importance of shared decision-making in audiologic rehabilitation and the changes required to implement it effectively.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document