scholarly journals Lights, Judges, Access: How Active Judicial Review of Discretionary Decisions Protects Access to Government Information

2013 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincent Kazmierski
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Access To Information ◽  
Government Information ◽  
Administrative Discretion ◽  
Limited Success

This article discusses the role of judicial review in access to information regimes in Canada. It provides a review of recent court decisions that show how the Canadian courts are actively supervising the exercise of administrative discretion over access to information. It argues that although efforts to reform Canada’s access to information legislation have so far been met with limited success, the judiciary has provided significant and important scrutiny, providing a key means of enforcing access to information rights in Canada.

Politicians, Judges, and the Charter

2008 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 227-238
Author(s):  
L.W. Sumner
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Political System ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Recent Book ◽  
The Political ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Democratic Process ◽  
Political Views ◽  
Political Right

The complaint is a familiar one: unelected, politically unaccountable judges are using their powers of judicial review to subvert the democratic process by shaping public policy in accordance with their own personal moral/political views. It is tempting to dismiss this complaint as the grumbling of those, usually (though not invariably) on the political right, who have been disaffected by court decisions with which they personally disagree. But this temptation must be resisted, since the critics of judicial review, such as Jeremy Waldron, raise important issues about the role of judges in a democratic political system. In his recent book A Common Law Theory of Judicial Review, Wil Waluchow responds to the critics' arguments. This Critical Notice outlines his response and assesses its adequacy.

Indonesia

2019 ◽  
pp. 231-252
Author(s):  
Simon Butt ◽  
Prayekti Murharjanti
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Pollution Control ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Implementation Framework ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
Waste Air ◽  
Judicial Reasoning

This chapter examines the environmental law of Indonesia. It first provides an overview of the allocation of powers with respect to Indonesia’s environmental law, taking into account the constitutional basis of environmental protection and the Ministry of Environment’s devolution of powers for managing the environment. The chapter then considers the structure and substance of environmental regulations as they apply to pollution control and hazardous waste, air pollution and climate change, and marine and fisheries. It concludes with an analysis of the implementation framework for environmental law, focusing on the creation of the Ministry of Environment and Forestry via the merger of the Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Forestry. Judicial enforcement of environmental law is also explored, with emphasis on the role of certified judges assigned to the general and administrative courts, judicial decisions and enforcement, judicial review in the Constitutional Court, judicial reasoning, and enforcement of Constitutional Court decisions.

scholarly journals The Role of the Indonesian Constitutional Court for An Effective Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Adjudication

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 72
Author(s):  
Heribertus Jaka Triyana
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Cultural Rights ◽  
Legal Power

The Indonesian Constitutional Court has played important roles and functions to protect and fulfill human rights in the Indonesian legal system including the economic, social and cultural rights through its legal power of  judicial review.   It affirms that the ecosoc rights are legal justiciable rights and they are parts of constitutional mandates. It means that decision on judicial reviews require State to behave in accordance to legal thresholds decided by the Court. Undoubtedly, compliance to the decisions will reveal undeniable facts for fulfilment of state conduct. However, it seems that there are still many considerations, emphasis and excuse to somehow reduce or ignore threshold of application of the Court decisions. Complexity of actors, institutions, authorities, level of implementation, and orientation of particular policies, programs, actions and funds reduces the thresholds.

scholarly journals Legal-Political Paradigm of Indonesian Constitutional Court: Defending a Principled Instrumentalist Court

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 36
Author(s):  
Mirza Satria Buana
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
The Political ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Main Argument ◽  
Policy Decisions ◽  
Political Arena ◽  
History Of

The establishment of the Indonesian Constitutional Court in 2003 signified the formation of a bridge between the judiciary and politics. Through its judicial review process, there is a more tangible presence of the judiciary and court in the political arena. The Court helps with addressing moral predicaments and influencing the products of the legislature. This paper discusses the shifting of the legal-politico paradigm, particularly relating to judicial leadership of the Court because this significantly affects the role of the Court in the political arena. The history of the establishment of the Court’s authority in judicial review is explored through a stylised analysis of the actions of two early Chief Justices. This paper also examines two Court decisions which illustrated the Court’s authority on judicial review because they demonstrated the importance of policy-driven decisions and judicial restraint. The main argument of this work is that it is hard to categorize the legal-politico actions of the Indonesian Court into either legalism or instrumentalism. Often, the Court synthesises the two. The legal-politico paradigm is a dynamic one. The most feasible model of the Indonesian Constitutional Court is that of a Principled Instrumentalist Court, where policy decisions guide the formation of legislation according to constitutional values, but the judges maintain prudential self-restraint.

National Legislatures

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin L. Cope ◽  
Hooman Movassagh
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Domestic Court ◽  
Comparative Analyses ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Legislative Branch ◽  
National Legislatures

One critique of some common-law comparative legal academies is their intensively “court-centric” focus, which, some believe, “marginalize[s]” the role of the legislative branch. The same may be said of the extant comparative international law literature: most of it concerns the interpretive approaches of national courts. In fact, one of the field’s seminal pieces characterizes comparative international law as involving “comparative analyses of various domestic court decisions.” Not surprisingly, then, nearly all of this volume’s contributions deal mostly or exclusively with courts and judicial decisions. We agree that courts can play a large part in diversifying how international law works across different systems, but we contend that the foundation of the comparative international law project lies elsewhere. We argue that among the most important and underappreciated interpretative acts—and therefore, those currently most needing study—are the international law interpretations of national legislatures.

WHAT ARE CONSTITUTIONS, AND WHAT SHOULD (AND CAN) THEY DO?

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry Alexander
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Constitution ◽  
Moral Rights ◽  
Constitutional Change ◽  
Principal Function ◽  
Fundamental Law

AbstractA constitution is, as Article VI of the United States Constitution declares, the fundamental law of the land, supreme as a legal matter over any other nonconstitutional law. But that almost banal statement raises a number of theoretically vexed issues. What is law? How is constitutional law to be distinguished from nonconstitutional law? How do morality and moral rights fit into the picture? And what are the implications of the answers to these questions for such questions as how and by whom should constitutions be interpreted? These are the issues that I shall address.Alexander proceeds as follows: In section I he takes up law's principal function of settling controversies over what we are morally obligated to do. In section II he then relate law's settlement function to the role of constitutional law. In particular, he discusses how constitutional law is distinguished from ordinary law, and he also discusses the role of constitutions in establishing basic governmental structures and enforcing certain moral rights. In section III he addresses the topic of constitutional interpretation, and in section IV the topic of judicial review. Finally, in section V, he discusses constitutional change, both change that occurs through a constitution's own rules for amendments and change that is the product of constitutional misinterpretations and revolutions.

The constitutional influence of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the UK apex court: institutional proximity and jurisprudential divergence?

2020 ◽  
Vol 71 (2) ◽  
pp. 285-302
Author(s):  
Roger Masterman
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Privy Council ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
Proportionality Test ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Relationship

It is often claimed that the constitutional role of the UK’s apex court is enriched as a result of the experiences of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as interpreter of constitutions within its overseas jurisdiction. This paper considers the relationship between the House of Lords/UK Supreme Court and the Judicial Committee and its effect on the importation of external influences into the UK’s legal system(s), further seeking to assess how far the jurisprudence of the Judicial Committee has influenced constitutional decision-making in the UK apex court. While ad hoc citation of Privy Council authorities in House of Lords/Supreme Court decisions is relatively commonplace, a post-1998 enthusiasm for reliance on Judicial Committee authority – relating to (i) a ‘generous and purposive’ approach to constitutional interpretation and (ii) supporting the developing domestic test for proportionality – quickly faded. Both areas are illustrative of a diminishing reliance on Judicial Committee authority, but reveal divergent approaches to constitutional borrowing as the UK apex court has incrementally mapped the contours of an autochthonous constitutionalism while simultaneously recognising the trans-jurisdictional qualities of the proportionality test.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document