Crowdfunding and Public Interest Judicial Review: A Risky New Resource for Law Reform

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joe Tomlinson
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Law Reform

Cohabitants, Choice, and the Public Interest

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Leckey
Keyword(s):  
Social Change ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Intimate Relationships ◽  
Family Law ◽  
Regulatory System ◽  
Law Reform ◽  
Private Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
System P ◽  
The Face

Through the narrow entry of property disputes between former cohabitants, this chapter aims to clarify thinking on issues crucial to philosophical examination of family law. It refracts big questions—such as what cohabitants should owe one another and the balance between choice and protection—through a legal lens of attention to institutional matters such as the roles of judges and legislatures. Canadian cases on unjust enrichment and English cases quantifying beneficial interests in a jointly owned home are examples. The chapter highlights limits on judicial law reform in the face of social change, both in substance and in the capacity to acknowledge the state's interest in intimate relationships. The chapter relativizes the focus on choice prominent in academic and policy discussions of cohabitation and highlights the character of family law, entwined with the general private law of property and obligations, as a regulatory system.

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in China

2021 ◽  
pp. 44-46
Author(s):  
Xiaowei Sun
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Global Market ◽  
The State ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Administrative Litigation ◽  
The Public ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Direct Applicability

This chapter focuses on administrative procedure and judicial review in China. Despite its willingness to adapt to the rules of the global market, China does not accept the direct applicability of international standards in administrative litigation. Judicial review of administration is based on a set of legislative texts and judicial interpretations by the Supreme People's Court. Among these texts, the Administrative Litigation Law regulates the judicial review of administrative acts. There are two lists in its chapter concerning the scope of judicial review: one includes the administrative acts that are open to judicial review, another the acts that are not reviewable. In any case, it is up to the courts to examine the following two combinations of criteria: the degree of the seriousness of the infringement with the definition of the state interest and that of the public interest; and the degree of procedural breach with the definition of the real impact on the rights of the plaintiff. According to Article 76 of the ALL, in the case of annulment and/or declaration of unlawfulness of an administrative act, a court may order the administration to take measures to compensate the damage inflicted on the plaintiff.

R v Inspectorate of Pollution, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd (No. 2) [1994] 2 CMLR 548, High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Expert Knowledge ◽  
Public Law ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Public

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Inspectorate of Pollution, ex parte Greenpeace Ltd (No. 2) [1994] 2 CMLR 548, High Court (Queen’s Bench Division). This case concerned whether organizations could demonstrate a sufficient interest for the purposes of bringing a judicial review on the basis of their expert knowledge and the public interest in bringing an application for review forward. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

scholarly journals Inkonstitusionalitas Sistem Unbundling dalam Usaha Penyediaan Listrik

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 185
Author(s):  
Jefri Porkonanta Tarigan
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
The State ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The Public ◽  
The People

Fungsi negara tidak hanya sebagai regulator (pengatur) dan umpire (wasit), namun juga berfungsi sebagai provider (penyedia) dan entrepreneur (pengusaha). Oleh karena itu, sudah seharusnya negara terlibat langsung dalam usaha penyediaan listrik untuk kepentingan umum bagi sebesar-besarnya kemakmuran rakyat sebagaimana amanat Pasal 33 UUD 1945. Usaha penyediaan listrik untuk kepentingan umum dengan unbundling system yaitu terpisahnya antara usaha pembangkitan, transmisi, distribusi, dan penjualan listrik, telah dinyatakan inkonstitusional oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Putusan Nomor 001-021-022/PUU-I/2003, bertanggal 15 Desember 2004. Namun kemudian adanya putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 149/PUU-VII/2009, bertanggal 30 Desember 2010, justru dipandang sebagai peluang dibolehkannya kembali sistem unbundling dalam usaha penyediaan listrik sebagaimana ketentuan Pasal 10 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2009 tentang Ketenagalistirkan. Hal tersebut kemudian mendorong diajukannya kembali permohonan pengujian terhadap ketentuan Pasal 10 ayat (2) Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2009. Melalui Putusan Nomor 111/PUU-XIII/2015, bertanggal 14 Desember 2016, Mahkamah Konstitusi pun menegaskan bahwa unbundling dalam usaha penyediaan tenaga listrik adalah tidak sesuai dengan konstitusi.The function of the state is not only as a regulator and referee, but also serves as provider and entrepreneur. Therefore, the state should be directly involved in the business of electric providing for the public interest to the greatest prosperity of the people as mandated by Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution. The unbundling system in electric providing for the public interest is the separation between the business of generation, transmission, distribution, and sales. The unbundling system has been declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court in Decision Number 001-021-022/PUU-I/2003 dated December 15, 2004. However, the decision of the Constitutional Court Number 149/PUU-VII/2009 dated 30 December 2010, is judged as an opportunity to re-enable the unbundling system in the business of electric providing as stipulated in Article 10 paragraph (2) of Law Number 30 Year 2009 about Electricity. It then encourages the re-submission of the petition for judicial review of the provisions of Article 10 paragraph (2) of Law Number 30 Year 2009. Then, through Decision Number 111/PUU-XIII/2015, dated December 14, 2016, the Constitutional Court confirm that unbundling in the business of providing power electricity for public interest is inconstitutional.

scholarly journals Permanent Economic Emergency in Argentina and its Constitutional Implications

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 87
Author(s):  
Juan Santiago Ylarri
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Emergency Situation ◽  
Two Dimensions ◽  
State Of Emergency ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legislative Delegation ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Broad Consensus

There is broad consensus among legal scholars about the existence of a permanent economic emergency in Argentina. This article examines the origin of the doctrine of economic emergency and its evolution in the Argentine Supreme Court of Justice decisions. Various regulatory devices implemented to face the economic crises are analyzed, and it is emphasized that the declaration of a state of emergency has not been made only by means of Congress formal legislation, but through the legislative powers of the President. The requirements for the validity of regulations of emergency are set forth in this article, including the actual existence of a state of emergency, a public interest, that the measure be reasonable, and the provisional nature of the emergency. Considering that courts have not exerted proper judicial review over the regulations of emergency, guideli¬nes to implement adequate judicial review over the subject at issue are presented. It is stated that the declaration of economic emergency and the factual circumstances underlying such declaration is a question subject to judicial review. In exercising the judicial review about this issue, two dimensions may be considered. First, timing, and, second, the correlation that must exist between a regulation —law, legislative delegation, or a decree of necessity and urgency— and the emergency situation it is intended to fight against. Finally, specific features of judicial review depending on the type of regulation that has declared the emergency are studied.

scholarly journals When Courts do Politics: Public Interest Law and Litigation in East Africa by J Oloka- Onyango

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-116
Author(s):  
Melissa Mungai
Keyword(s):  
East Africa ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Public Interest Law ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Waves

An all-too-simplistic appreciation of the relationship among the three arms of government should be excluded in order to get the gist of Oloka’s writing. He pulls apart the idea that courts simply interpret the law, keeping off from legislative and executive duties. Instead, the author introduces the notion that courts are not insulated from the ‘waves of politics’. In this regard, he invites scrutiny of their powers: of judicial review, to declare a law invalid, to appoint and vet judges, and to interpret the constitution. These defy a purist understanding of the classical separation of powers theory which holds that ‘judges should just judge’ and in this sense avoid upsetting the status quo.

scholarly journals Inkonstitusionalitas Pasal 19 Perma Nomor 2 Tahun 2016 dan Implikasinya terhadap Akses Keadilan Warga Negara

2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 700
Author(s):  
Yogi Zul Fadhli
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Development Project ◽  
Land Grabbing ◽  
The Public ◽  
Location Determination ◽  
The People ◽  
Human Rights Violation ◽  
Proportionality Principle

Judicial review as an extraordinary legal effort has constitutionally regulated by Indonesian law. However, in the administrative court, related with the dispute of location determination for the public interest, judicial review is dispensed by the Article 19 of Supreme Court Regulation No. 2 of 2016. Those article is unconstitutional because theoretically contrary with the Constitution of Indonesia and disharmonious in the types, hierarchy and substantive of the proportionality principle. Thus, human rights violation is rising especially for the people that being victims of land grabbing of development project for the public interest and disorganize of the system procedures in administrative court.

11. Standing: litigation and the public interest

2021 ◽  
pp. 428-464
Author(s):  
Timothy Endicott
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Judicial Process ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
The Public ◽  
Human Rights Act

This chapter examines standing—the entitlement to be heard by a court. No judicial process of any kind may proceed without it. In an ordinary claim, the claimant’s standing is based on his assertion of grounds for his claim to a remedy. In a claim for judicial review, the claimant does not need to assert a right to a remedy, but must have a ‘sufficient interest’ in the matter in dispute. The discussion covers campaign litigation, costs in campaign litigation, standing in an ordinary claim for a declaration, standing in Human Rights Act proceedings, standing for public authorities, and standing to intervene.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document