Administrative Law and Judicial Deference

Description

In recent years, the question whether judges should defer to administrative decisions has attracted considerable interest amongst public lawyers throughout the common law world. This book examines how the common law of judicial review has responded to the development of the administrative state in three different common law jurisdictions—the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and Canada—over the past 100 years. This comparison demonstrates that the idea of judicial deference is a valuable feature of modern administrative law, because it gives lawyers and judges practical guidance on how to negotiate the constitutional tension between the democratic legitimacy of the administrative state and the judicial role in maintaining the rule of law. Volume 10 in the series Hart Studies in Comparative Public Law Acknowledgements Table of Contents Table of Cases Table of Legislation 1. A Question about Administrative Law I.
JURISDICTIONAL ERROR II. JUDICIAL D
EFERENCE III.
THE ARGUMENT IN BRIEF 2. Rethinking the Diceyan Dialectic I.
THE DICEYAN DIALECTIC II.
RETHINKING THE DICEYAN DIALECTIC III.
REVISITING THE QUESTION ABOUT ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 3. The Legacy of the Diceyan Dialectic I.
JURISDICTIONAL ERROR AND THE DICEYAN DIALECTIC II. JUDICIAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC LAW THEORY III.
PROPORTIONALITY AND JUDICIAL DEFERENCE IV.
CONCLUSION 4.
Constitutionalism, Judicial Restraint, and Administrative Law I.
CONSTITUTIONALISM AND JUDICIAL RESTRAINT II.
JUDICIAL RESTRAINT AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW III.
CONCLUSION 5.
From Formalism to Reasonable Justification: The Transformation
of Canadian Administrative Law I.
THE FORMAL AND CONCEPTUAL ERA II.
THE PRAGMATIC AND FUNCTIONAL ERA III.
THE DIS-FUNCTIONAL ERA IV.
CONCLUSION 6.
Authority, Legitimacy, and Legality in Administrative Law I.
LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE II.
LEGALITY AND THE LEGITIMACY OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW III.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND JUDICIAL DEFERENCE Bibliography Index