Search results

Canadian lawyers make far too little use of the rich body of administrative law which has been developed in the United States. To some extent this is because the very sophistication and complexity of that law makes occasional unorganized forays and serendipitous research intimidating and, all too often, frustrating ventures. The purpose of this review is to introduce the Canadian reader to the latest volume of the leading treatise and to a new one volume textbook. Each, in its own way, may serve as an invaluable guide and introduction to American administrative law. Before going any further it would be well to consider why a working knowledge of American administrative law will be of value to a Canadian lawyer. After all, we have a different system of government and do not "judicialize" all our social, economic and political problems to anything like the same extent. Law and the courts have never played the dominant role here as in the United States. For us the emphasis is on parliamentary sovereignty and ministerial responsibility, not on limited powers and judicial review. How relevant are American solutions to our problems?

by Georges Langrod « Maître de recherches », French National Centre for Scientific Research, Full Professor at the University of the Saar The legal aspect of administrative procedure is traditionally neglected by the Science of administrative Law. Considered as a technical problem, it is left to administrative scientists only. The whole legal operation preceding the administrative decision remains outside the sphere of scientific analysis, thereby impoverishing our knowledge of the administrative phenomenon. On the one hand the specialist in administrative law respects to a surprising degree the tradition that administrative law regulates the aims of administrative action, but leaves the ways leading to accomplishment of these aims solely to administrative technicians. On the other hand, the specialist in Public Administration sees only the essential contradiction between the strict bounds of restrictive legal precept and the necessary elasticity of administrative action. He defends the latter and is therefore prima facie opposed to the former. Although the Administration should be as unhampered as possible in order to be effective in everyday life, the « Rechtsstaat » — with its characteristic curtailment of « Le Roy le veult » — is founded also on the active participation of cujus res agitur in administrative disputes. This participation assures at the same time an important control of administrative action by the citizen. It constitutes one of the victories of political democracy over the unbridled licence of « royal pleasure ». Political expediency can no longer be considered as the only motivation of all administrative action. Nevertheless it should not be undervalued: a balance must be sought between the legal, technical and political aspects of this action, the political aspect being accepted in its widest sence. The process of « juridicalisation » of Administration through administrative Law — extended even to administrative procedure — must be constantly scrutinized with a view to controlling the effects of old mental habits and conservative approach to Public Administration and to administrative management. Professor Langrod examines, in all its aspects, the generally underestimated but important problem of « purely administrative » procedure, i.e. of non-contentious disputes within the frame of administrative action. He discusses the different approaches of the traditional doctrine to this problem and its frequent lack of comprehension in this field. Having weighed the consequences of the traditional application of procedural theory and process rules to justice alone, the author goes on to examine — by methods of comparison — the present-day solutions to the problem. These solutions are grouped under three principal headings: — administrative systems with well-developed administrative Law but without any « processual » approach, such as those existing in France and Germany. This approach is reserved only for the administrative courts («juridiction administrative», «Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit»). Everything which happens within the framework of « pure » Administration is left, almost entirely, to the discretion of internal rules, under the subsequent judicial control of legality; — « mixed » systems, or half-way solutions, i.e. mainly the Anglo-Saxon doctrine of « quasi-judicial » functions, presupposing the existence of a dispute between equal parties, before the Administration. The procedural rights of these parties, accorded by law or by practice, differentiate this type of procedure from the « purely » administrative activity. Thus appear in England the so-called « administrative tribunals » which are not judicial courts, but administrative authorities with a particular process, resulting from the fundamentals of fair play in administrative action. To this group belong also the administrative systems of Spain, Portugal, Latin America, Italy and Sweden, where — if not always the legislature and practice — at least the doctrine of administrative Law and the jurisprudence in administrative matters frequently accept a procedural point of view for the administrative action; — systems comprising a complete « processual » sector of administrative Law doctrine and a legislative codification of legal procedure of Public Administration. This is the case in Austria and three other countries of Central-Eastern Europe where in the years 1925-1930 « codes of administrative procedure » appeared, and are still obligatory. In spite of changes after 1945 in countries now under Communist regime, in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, the great Austrian model remains unchanged. The United States of America, owing to the A.P.A. 1946, are found in the same group, because of their global approach to this problem of administrative dispute, based on the classical « due process » doctrine and on the application of the « audi alteram partem » formula (through adjudication, hearing, notice, examiners corps, etc.). Professor Langrod's study comprises administrative dispute considered as an integral part of a « general legal procedure », constituting in theory a « processual » uniformity, regardless of the sector of Law to which it applies. Thus procedural approach ceases to be a monopoly of justice as it was for centuries, and has to be extended to all official actions concerning parties' interests or rights. The author endeavours finally to formulate some general principles of administrative legal procedure, based on empirical comparative experience. After having examined and summarized these principles, he concludes that the great process of « juridicalization » of Public Administration has generally desirable effects. It brings about more social outlook, the true democratization of Administration owing to the active and « organized » co-operation between authorities and parties) and the fact that — if well conceived and balanced — legal rules tend not to hamper, but rather to guide the processes of litigation, to the true interests of legal security and administrative efficiency.

Purpose: Should social workers in England have a power of entry in cases where individuals seem to be hindering safeguarding enquiries for community-dwelling adults? This paper describes a re-examination of relevant sections of the 2012 Government Safeguarding Power of Entry Consultation. This re-examination was carried out as part of a policy review commissioned by the Department of Health (DH) in 2015. Methodology Analysis of responses to the Government's Safeguarding Power of Entry Consultation was undertaken in late 2015-early 2016. Using NVivo qualitative data analysis software, evidence from consultation submissions was searched for information on the prevalence of the 'hindering scenario' and views of circumstances where a new power of entry might be considered appropriate. Findings: The majority of respondents to the Consultation generally reported that situations when a new power of entry would be required were not encountered regularly; however a minority of respondents stated they were more frequent occurrences. Examples of situations where third parties appeared to be hindering access were given across the different categories of adults at risk and types of abuse and current practices were described. Respondents observed that the risks of excessive or inappropriate use of any new powers needed to be considered carefully. Originality/value: This re-analysis sheds light on the prevalence and circumstances of the 'hinder scenario' which is of interest to policy makers, researchers and practitioners.

This handbook follows the discussion of ethics in significant pieces of public administration literature from the late-19th century to the start of the 21st. It offers theoretical perspective, illustrative cases, and empirical research. This edition includes a new chapter on military ethics.

In its recent report entitled Through a Glass Darkly, the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare claims that there is insufficient evidence available to evaluate welfare services, yet even within a brief paper this can be demonstrated to be not so. The Senate Committee however chose to ignore information about services as such, in order to discuss the process of evaluation. The apparent shortcomings of current services and the way the committee largely ignored these must be viewed in the light of the role welfare fulfils within the state—a role in which serving the interests of claimants is clearly not the major component.

This article provides an overview of the federal administrative justice system in Argentina. It begins with an explanation of how the power to enact procedural law and to organize administrative courts is distributed between the federal state and the local states. It then describes the core constitutional and statutory principles and structures of administrative jurisdiction and the courts, and discusses the lack of a general special procedure to deal with actions involving the federal state and federal subject matter issues (except for interim measures and 'amparo' proceedings). The article goes on to provide an explanation of what is currently happening regarding class actions within this context, and it ends with remarks by the author on some provisional conclusions. ; Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales