16. Judicial review: grounds and remedies

This chapter assesses judicial review and the rule of law, the three traditional grounds of judicial review, proportionality, the modern approach to judicial review, and remedies. Judicial review is the rule of law in action. Through judicial review, the courts place constraints on executive power by upholding and projecting rule of law principles on to executive actions. Indeed, it ensures that administrative decisions are taken rationally, in accordance with a fair procedure, and within the powers conferred by Parliament. As such, the traditional judicial review grounds of illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety are applied flexibly to protect individuals against the unreasonable, arbitrary, procedurally unfair, or unlawful use of power. Judicial review has unique remedies known as prerogative orders which comprise mandatory orders, prohibiting orders, and quashing orders.

Research on Dispute Settlement Mechanism of Economic and Trade Cooperation Between China, Mongolia and Russia

The dispute resolution mechanism of economic and trade cooperation between China, Mongolia and Russia is a kind of dispute resolution mechanism specially used to solve the disputes of economic and trade cooperation between China, Mongolia and Russia. It is not only has the practical necessity, but also has the political and legal feasibility. The main problems of the dispute resolution mechanism are that the dispute resolution methods are too scattered, the dispute resolution basis is too old, and the cohesion and effectiveness of the dispute resolution methods are poor. Under the guidance of the concept of "coordinated development, win-win and mutual benefit, fair procedure, inclusiveness and harmony", it is reasonable to build a dispute resolution mechanism of economic and trade cooperation between China, Mongolia and Russia, which covers the way of political diplomacy and judicial characteristics. Specifically, the dispute resolution mechanism needs to establish special dispute resolution institutions, unified applicable rules, diversified dispute resolution procedures and sound supporting systems.

The effect of tax knowledge on relationship of procedural justice perception towards voluntary tax compliance mediated by trust

This research aims to examine the effect of psychology factors toward voluntary tax compliance on personal taxpayers who have a business (MSME) in Malang Raya. Kirchler, Hoelzl, & Wahl (2008) define voluntary tax compliance as the obedience based on the feeling of trust towards the tax authority. This feeling of trust towards tax authority can be created from the procedural justice obtained and felt by the taxpayers. Tax knowledge of taxpayers is also expected to strengthen the effect of perception of procedural justice towards voluntary tax compliance and the trust towards the tax authority. The researcher employed samples of personal taxpayers who have a business (MSME) in Malang Raya through a convenience sampling method. The samples of this research were 405 respondents and were analyzed by using the SEM-PLS method with WarpPLS 6.0. The research results show that procedural justice perception affects the trust towards the authority and voluntary tax compliance, the trust towards the authority also mediates the effect of procedural justice perception towards voluntary tax compliance, but tax knowledge is not proven of strengthening procedural justice perception towards the trust towards the authority and voluntary tax compliance. The result indicates that to increase tax compliance the authority must make sure the fair procedure according to taxpayers. The fair procedure will establish trust in the authority and make taxpayers easier to comply. Tax knowledge doesn’t make the effect stronger because taxpayers only judge to comply according to the easy and simple procedure of tax system

The Nature and Limits of the Duty of Rescue

Virtually everyone believes that we have a duty to rescue fellow human-beings from serious danger when we can do so at small cost to ourselves – and this often forms the starting point for arguments in moral and political philosophy on topics such as global poverty, state legitimacy, refugees, and the donation of body parts. But how are we to explain this duty, and within what limits does it apply? It cannot be subsumed under a wider consequentialist requirement to prevent harm. Nor can it be understood as a duty of social justice that citizens owe to one another under a social contract for mutual protection. Instead it is a sui generis duty of justice that arises from the direct physical encounter between rescuer and victim, and is accordingly limited in scope. However the simplicity of the duty evaporates when multiple potential rescuers are present. Here responsibility lies with the collective as a whole until it is assigned by a fair procedure to individual members. Each individual is required as a matter of justice to discharge that share, but not more, though in the case that others do not comply, he will have a reason, and sometimes a humanitarian duty, to take up the slack.

The Nature and Limits of the Duty of Rescue

Virtually everyone believes that we have a duty to rescue fellow human-beings from serious danger when we can do so at small cost to ourselves – and this often forms the starting point for arguments in moral and political philosophy on topics such as global poverty, state legitimacy, refugees, and the donation of body parts. But how are we to explain this duty, and within what limits does it apply? It cannot be subsumed under a wider consequentialist requirement to prevent harm. Nor can it be understood as a duty of social justice that citizens owe to one another under a social contract for mutual protection. Instead it is a sui generis duty of justice that arises from the direct physical encounter between rescuer and victim, and is accordingly limited in scope. However the simplicity of the duty evaporates when multiple potential rescuers are present. Here responsibility lies with the collective as a whole until it is assigned by a fair procedure to individual members. Each individual is required as a matter of justice to discharge that share, but not more, though in the case that others do not comply, he will have a reason, and sometimes a humanitarian duty, to take up the slack.

Energy Justice as Part of the Acceptance of Wind Energy: An Analysis of Limburg in The Netherlands

Policy documents in Limburg stress the importance of participation and distribution of benefits in wind energy projects, but it is not clear which modes of participation and distribution of benefits are most just, both in terms of perceived justice, and in terms of justice principles. Research shows that considering justice in renewable energy transitions increases the level of acceptance. This study aims to provide insight in what modes of participation and distribution are perceived as most just and likely to create local acceptance of wind parks. The most preferred modes are being compared to the indicators of the energy justice framework in order if they meet the criteria for a fair procedure and distribution of outcomes. Based on semi-structured interviews the analysis of the data demonstrated that different modes of participation in different phases of the process are being preferred and that a balance between modes of distribution of benefits is preferred. The results indicate that the most preferred modes of participation cannot necessarily address all indicators of procedural justice and that depending on the mode of distribution of benefits and the balance between those modes indicators of distributive justice can be addressed.

16. Judicial review

This chapter assesses judicial review and the rule of law, the three traditional grounds of judicial review, proportionality, the modern approach to judicial review, and remedies. Judicial review is the rule of law in action. Through judicial review, the courts place constraints on executive power by upholding and projecting rule of law principles on to executive actions. Indeed, it ensures that administrative decisions are taken rationally, in accordance with a fair procedure, and within the powers conferred by Parliament. As such, the traditional judicial review grounds of illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety are applied flexibly to protect individuals against the unreasonable, arbitrary, procedurally unfair, or unlawful use of power. Judicial review has unique remedies known as prerogative orders which comprise mandatory orders, prohibiting orders, and quashing orders.

7. Establishing fair procedure

No healthcare system in the world has sufficient money to provide the best possible treatment for all patients in all situations. When is the extra benefit of a new, better, and expensive treatment worth the extra cost? ‘Establishing fair procedure’ explains that medical ethics can provide practical support to assist policy-makers in the allocation of healthcare resources. The medical ethicist acts as the architect of a process of fair and accountable decision-making, and also facilitates discussion about, and judges between, those ethical values that have been identified for application within this process. The rule of rescue principle is discussed along with thought experiments that support or go against it.