American Administrative Law in 1931

1932 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 894-910
Author(s):  
Marshall E. Dimock
Keyword(s):  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Abuse Of Power ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
The Law

An analysis of administrative law cases which federal and state courts decided during 1931 reveals some exceptionally interesting problems and tendencies. These will be considered under the following main headings: (1) the separation of powers and administrative action, (2) principles regulating administrative determinations, (3) conclusiveness and appeal, (4) the law of officers, (5) the liability of officers, (6) community liability, and (7) the remedies against abuse of power.

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.

Understanding Administrative Law in the Common Law World

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Daly
Keyword(s):  
Future Development ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
The Core ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
Pluralist Approach ◽  
Core Features

This book has three goals: to enhance understanding of administrative law; to guide future development of the law; and to justify the core features of the contemporary law of judicial review of administrative action. Around the common law world, the law of judicial review of administrative action has changed dramatically in recent decades, accelerating a centuries-long process of incremental evolution. This book offers a fresh framework for understanding the core features of contemporary administrative law. Through comparative analysis of case law from Australia, Canada, England, Ireland and New Zealand, Dr Daly develops an interpretive approach by reference to four values: individual self-realisation, good administration, electoral legitimacy and decisional autonomy. The interaction of this plurality of values explains the structure of the vast field of judicial review of administrative action: institutional structures, procedural fairness, substantive review, remedies, restrictions on remedies and the scope of judicial review, everything from the rule against bias to jurisdictional error to the application of judicial review principles to non-statutory bodies. Addressing this wide array of subjects in detail, Dr Daly demonstrates how his pluralist approach, with the values being employed in a complementary and balanced fashion, can enhance academics’, students’, practitioners’ and judges’ understanding of administrative law. Furthermore, this pluralist approach is capable of guiding the future development of the law of judicial review of administrative action, a point illustrated by a careful analysis of the unsettled doctrinal area of legitimate expectation. Dr Daly closes by arguing that his values-based, pluralist framework supports the legitimacy of contemporary administrative law which although sometimes called into question in fact facilitates the flourishing of individuals, of public administration and of the liberal democratic system.

Making the Law Work: Alberta's Liquor Act and the Control of Medicinal Liquor from 1916 to 1924

2012 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 249-265 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah E. Hamill
Keyword(s):  
Regulatory System ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Broad Definition ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
Administrative Control ◽  
The Law ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Methods Of Control ◽  
Policies And Practices

AbstractThis paper uses the example of the control of medicinal liquor during prohibition in Alberta to explore how the methods of control altered during the eight years of prohibition. This paper argues that the system used to control medicinal liquor changed from a prosecutorial system to a regulatory system. This shift from prosecution to regulation was essential in ensuring that medicinal liquor was actually controlled and allowed medicinal liquor to become an alternative as well as an exception to prohibition. This paper focuses on explaining the success of administrative control rather than the courts' attempts to control administrative action and thus examines administrative law and practice from the ground up. Consequently, this paper uses a broad definition of administrative law which includes the regulations, policies and practices created and used by the provincial state in its attempt to control medicinal liquor.

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.

scholarly journals História do Direito Administrativo no Brasil (1937-1964): o debate em torno das delegações legislativas

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (35) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mauricio Costa Mesurini
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Santa Catarina ◽  
Legal Doctrine ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Legislative Delegation ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Government

História do Direito Administrativo no Brasil (1937-1964): o debate em torno das delegações legislativasThe history of the Administrative Law in Brazil (1937-1964): the debate about legislative delegation Mauricio Costa Mesurini[1] RESUMO: Trata-se de um trabalho sobre história do Direito Administrativo no Brasil, notadamente no período de 1937 a 1964. O objetivo é mostrar alguns aspectos da trajetória do campo, em especial as transformações favorecidas pela tendência modernizadora, entre elas, o debate em torno das delegações legislativas, um tema que se desenvolveu na doutrina a partir e à margem das disposições constitucionais da época. É inegável a importância da lei para o direito público moderno. Mas o que é a lei? Quem tem o poder de confeccioná-la? “O governo das leis” em substituição ao “governo dos homens”, em verdade uma tautologia, encobre o problema sobre a fonte de onde emanam as leis. Assim sendo, mesmo em um Estado de Direito, a disputa político-jurídica permanece latente e continua em jogo a definição de quem são os “senhores” da legislação. O artigo investiga o debate jurídico em torno das delegações legislativas abordando quatro juristas da época: Francisco Campos, Victor Nunes Leal, Bilac Pinto e Themistocles Cavalcanti. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Direito Administrativo. Direito Constitucional. Delegações legislativas. Separação de poderes. ABSTRACT: This paper is a study on the history of administrative law in Brazil, notably in the period 1937-1964. The purpose is to present some aspects of the development of this field of study, especially the changes favored by the modernization process through which Brazil has passed, such as the debate about legislative delegation, a theme that was developed in the legal doctrine from and beyond the constitutional arrangement of the period. It is undeniable the importance of the legislation to modern public law. But what is legislation? Who has the power to make it? The “rule of law” replacing the “government of men”, in fact a tautology, conceals the problem of the source from where the law emanates. Therefore, even in the bases of the rule of law, the legal-political dispute remains latent, and the definition about who establishes the law remains open. More specifically, the paper analyzes the debate about legislative delegation in Brazil by four legal experts of the period: Francisco Campos, Victor Nunes Leal, Bilac Pinto and Themistocles Cavalcanti. KEYWORDS: Administrative law. Constitutional law. Legislative delegation. Separation of powers.[1] Doutor em História do Direito pela Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina – UFSC, 2016. Mestre em 2008 e graduado em 2005 pela Direito Público Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina – UFSC. Professor de Direito Administrativo da Faculdade Cenecista de Joinville

Scope of Judicial Review of Administrative Action

2021 ◽  
pp. 200-223
Author(s):  
Paul Daly
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
Turn On ◽  
The Law ◽  
Individual Self ◽  
Case Basis

The law relating to the scope of judicial review of administrative action is somewhat unclear and has a particular tendency to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Indeed, amenability to judicial review will often turn on the application of particular constitutional, statutory or regulatory provisions: in Australia and Canada, for instance, there are multiple judicial review jurisdictions, at federal and state/provincial/territorial level, each with their own idiosyncrasies. This chapter argues, nonetheless, that administrative law values are helpful in understanding the decided cases, with individual self-realisation, good administration, electoral legitimacy and decisional autonomy providing meaningful guidance in navigating the jurisprudence. This chapter also offers some suggestions as to how the law relating to scope of judicial review could be improved, further underscoring how useful it is to understand the law of judicial review of administrative action in terms of administrative law values.

scholarly journals Struggling Towards Coherence in Canadian Administrative Law? Recent Cases on Standard of Review and Reasonableness

2017 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
pp. 527-564 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Daly
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Analytical Framework ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Context Sensitive ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Relationship

Although the Supreme Court of Canada’s seminal decision in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick has now been cited more than 10,000 times by Canadian courts and administrative tribunals, many of its key features remain obscure. In this article, the author analyzes recent cases decided under the Dunsmuir framework with a view to determining where Canadian courts might usefully go next. The author’s argument is that the two important principles said to underlie the Dunsmuir framework—the rule of law and democracy—can provide guidance to courts in simplifying and clarifying judicial review of administrative action. In Part I, the author explains how the relationship between Dunsmuir’s categorical approach and the contextual approach that it replaced is uncertain and causes significant confusion, and explores the potential utility of the two underlying principles in simplifying the law. The application of the reasonableness standard of review is the focus of Part II, in which the author criticizes the general approach to reasonableness review in Canada, but suggests that the rule of law and democracy may assist in clarifying the law, by setting the boundaries of the “range” of reasonable outcomes and structuring the analytical framework for identifying unreasonable administrative decisions. Finally, the author draws the strands of Parts I and II together by arguing for the adoption of a unified, context-sensitive reasonableness standard, underpinned by the rule of law and democracy, with the aim of providing clarity and simplicity to Canadian administrative law in a manner faithful to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Dunsmuir.

PERSINGGUNGAN KEWENANGAN MENGADILI PENYALAHGUNAAN DISKRESI ANTARA PENGADILAN TUN DAN PENGADILAN TIPIKOR / INTERCEPTION OF JUSTICE AUTHORITY OF DISCRETION ABUSE BETWEEN ADMINISTRATION COURT AND CORRUPTION COURTS

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 213
Author(s):  
Budi Suhariyanto
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
State Finance ◽  
The Law ◽  
To Receive

Diskresi sebagai wewenang bebas, keberadaannya rentan akan disalahgunakan. Penyalahgunaan diskresi yang berimplikasi merugikan keuangan negara dapat dituntutkan pertanggungjawabannya secara hukum administrasi maupun hukum pidana. Mengingat selama ini peraturan perundang-undangan tentang pemberantasan tindak pidana korupsi tidak merumuskan secara rinci yang dimaksudkan unsur menyalahgunakan kewenangan maka para hakim menggunakan konsep penyalahgunaan wewenang dari hukum administrasi. Problema muncul saat diberlakukannya Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2014 dimana telah memicu persinggungan dalam hal kewenangan mengadili penyalahgunaan wewenang (termasuk diskresi) antara Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara dengan Pengadilan Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Pada perkembangannya, persinggungan kewenangan mengadili tersebut ditegaskan oleh Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 4 Tahun 2015 bahwa PTUN berwenang menerima, memeriksa, dan memutus permohonan penilaian ada atau tidak ada penyalahgunaan wewenang (termasuk diskresi) dalam Keputusan dan/atau Tindakan Pejabat Pemerintahan sebelum adanya proses pidana. Sehubungan tidak dijelaskan tentang definisi dan batasan proses pidana yang dimaksud, maka timbul penafsiran yang berbeda. Perlu diadakan kesepakatan bersama dan dituangkan dalam regulasi tentang tapal batas persinggungan yang jelas tanpa meniadakan kewenangan pengujian penyalahgunaan wewenang diskresi pada Pengadilan TUN.Discretion as free authority is vulnerable to being misused. The abuse of discretion implicating the state finance may be prosecuted by both administrative and criminal law. In view of the fact that the law on corruption eradication does not formulate in detail the intended element of authority abuse, the judges use the concept of authority abuse from administrative law. Problems arise when the enactment of Law No. 30 of 2014 triggered an interception in terms of justice/ adjudicate authority on authority abuse (including discretion) between the Administrative Court and Corruption Court. In its development, the interception of justice authority is affirmed by Regulation of the Supreme Court Number 4 of 2015 that the Administrative Court has the authority to receive, examine and decide upon the appeal there is or there is no misuse of authority in the Decision and / or Action of Government Officials prior to the criminal process. That is, shortly before the commencement of the criminal process then that's when the authority of PTUN decides to judge the misuse of authority over the case. In this context, Perma No. 4 of 2015 has imposed restrictions on the authority of the TUN Court in prosecuting the abuse of discretionary authority.

KEBIJAKAN KRIMINALISASI DALAM UNDANG-UNDANG DI BIDANG POLITIK

Jurnal Hukum ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 1592
Author(s):  
Hanafi Amrani
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Moral Values ◽  
Criminal Sanction ◽  
Criminal Sanctions ◽  
The Law

AbstrakArtikel ini membahas dua permasalahan pokok: pertama, kriteria yang digunakan oleh pembentuk undang-undang di bidang politik dalam menetapkan suatu perbuatan sebagai perbuatan pidana (kriminalisasi); dan kedua, fungsi sanksi pidana dalam undang-undang di bidang politik. Terkait dengan kriminalisasi, undang-undang di bidang politik yang termasuk ke dalam hukum administrasi, maka pertimbangan dari pembuat undang-undang tentu saja tidak sekedar kriminalisasi sebagaimana diatur dalam ketentuan hukum pidana dalam arti sebenarnya. Hal tersebut disebabkan adanya pertimbangan-pertimbangan tertentu. Pertama, perbuatan yang dilarang dalam hukum pidana administrasi lebih berorientasi pada perbuatan yang bersifat mala prohibita, sedangkan dalam ketentuan hukum pidana yang sesungguhnya berorientasi pada perbuatan yang bersifat mala in se. Kedua, sebagai konsekuensi dari adanya penggolongan dua kategori kejahatan tersebut, maka pertimbangan yang dijadikan acuan juga akan berbeda. Untuk yang pertama (mala prohibita), sanksi pidana itu dibutuhkan untuk menjamin ditegakkannya hukum administrasi tersebut. Dalam hal ini sanksi pidana berfungsi sebagai pengendali dan pengontrol tingkah laku individu untuk mencapai suatu keadaan yang diinginkan. Sedangkan untuk yang kedua (mala in se), fungsi hukum pidana dan sanksi pidana lebih berorientasi pada melindungi dan mempertahankan nilai-nilai moral yang tertanam di masyarakat tempat di mana hukum itu diberlakukan atau ditegakkan. Kata Kunci: Kebijakan, Kriminalisasi, Undang-Undang PolitikThis article discusses two main problems: firstly, the criteria used by the legislators in the field of politics in determining an act as a criminal act (criminalization); secondly, the function of criminal sanctions in legislation in the field of politics. Associated with criminalization, legislation in the field of politics that is included in administrative law, the consideration of the legislators of course not just criminalization as stipulated in the provisions of criminal law in the true sense. This is due to certain considerations. Firstly, the act which is forbidden in the administration of criminal law is more oriented to act is malum prohibitum offences, whereas in actual criminal law provisions in the act are mala in se offences. Secondly, as a consequence of the existence of two categories of classification of the crime, then consideration will also vary as a reference. For the first (mala prohibita), criminal sanctions are needed to ensure the enforcement of the administrative law. In this case the criminal sanction serves as controller and controlling the behavior of individuals to achieve a desired state. As for the second (mala in se), the function of criminal law and criminal sanctions is more oriented to protect and maintain the moral values that are embedded in a society where the law was enacted or enforced.

scholarly journals Misconception on the Authority Abuse of Power in the Law Enforcement against Corruption

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (9) ◽  
pp. 51
Author(s):  
Sadjijono Sadjijono ◽  
Bagus Teguh Santoso
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
Legal Concept ◽  
Abuse Of Power ◽  
Government Administration ◽  
The Absolute ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Government ◽  
Administrative Jurisdiction

Law No. 30/ 2014 on Government Administration brings the strength and the averment on the performance of the governmental functions which include executive, legislative, and juridical in order to provide the public services (bestuurzorg). Such regulation also aims to prevent and to eliminate any kinds of the maladministration done by the government officials/organs in implementing their functions so that good governance can be realized. In implementing their function, the government should rely on the useful performance (doelmatigheid) and the effectiveness (doeltreffenhgeid) according to the norms of each authority. It is a sophism when the ‘authority’ and/or the ‘competence’ mentioned under the Law No. 30/ 2014 on Government Administration are defined differently in the letterlijk gramatikal wet without associating those terms with an understanding of bevoegheid in an administrative legal concept. An idea that distinctively defines the term ‘competence’ as a right and ‘authority’ as a power is considered as an inconsistent idea, which may cause dualism and distortion in the common law enforcement reffering to the administrative law, particularly related to the concept of the authority abuse of power mentioned under the Law No. 31/ 1999 amended by the Law No. 20/ 2001 on deeds against corruption. As the result, when the notion of ‘authority abuse of power’ is defined as a right (as mentioned in article 1, subsection 5 jo. article 17, Law No. 30/ 2014 on Government Administration), it will be characterized into the absolute competence of the administrative jurisdiction, and when the notion of ‘authority abuse of power’ is defined as a power (as mentioned in article 3, Law No. 31/ 1999 on deeds against corruption), it will be characterized into the absolute competence of the corruption-act jurisdiction. Meanwhile, implementing the government’s ‘competence’ and/or ‘authority’ is characterized into one concept based on the norms of the authority power.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document