Suchergebnisse

American administrative law is grounded in a conception of the relationship between reviewing courts and agencies modeled on the relationship between appeals courts and trial courts in civil litigation. This appellate review model was not an inevitable foundation of administrative law, but it has had far-reaching consequences, and its origins are poorly understood. This Article details how the appellate review model emerged after 1906 as an improvised response by the U.S. Supreme Court to a political crisis brought on by aggressive judicial review of decisions of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Once the jeny-built model was in place, Congress signaled its approval, and an academic – John Dickinson – wrote a persuasive book extolling its virtues. As a result, the appellate review model became entrenched by the 1920s and eventually spread to all of administrative law. The early adoption of the appellate review model helps explain why the Supreme Court never seriously grappled with Article III problems created by the widespread use of administrative agencies to adjudicate cases once the New Deal and the expansion of the administrative state arrived. It also helps explain why the judiciary has played such a large role in the development of administrative policy in the United States relative to other legal systems.

The legal position of public sector employees who challenge employment decisions taken by the state or organs of state in its/their capacity as employer in South Africa has long been problematic. Even though at least four judgments by the Constitutional Court of South Africa have considered whether employment-related decisions in the public sector domain do or could amount to administrative action and whether administrative law and/or labour law should be applicable for purposes of dispute resolution, legal uncertainty remains the order of the day due to a combination of factors. The authors assess whether (and to what extent) the rich South African administrative-law jurisprudence remains of importance in relation to the public employment relationship, bearing in mind the applicable legal considerations, including the inter-relatedness, interdependence and indivisibility of the range of applicable fundamental constitutional rights. Considering the debate in other jurisdictions on this issue, the authors develop a paradigm for situating different employment-related disputes as matters to be decided on labour and/or administrative-law principles in South Africa. This requires an appreciation, to the extent relevant, of the unique nature public sector employment relationships and a detailed investigation of the applicable legal sources and precise parameters of the cases already decided in the country. The position of employees deliberately excluded from the scope of labour legislation is analysed, for example, as is the legal position of high-ranking public sector employees. The outcome of the investigation is important for determining the legal principles to be applied in cases involving public sector employees in their employment relationship, and for purposes of determining the question of jurisdiction. Recent cases, for example where the courts have permitted the state, as employer, to review its own disciplinary decision (via a state-appointed chairperson of a disciplinary hearing) on the basis that this amounts to administrative action which is reviewable, are also examined in the light of the uncertainty regarding the precise nature and scope of the review.

American administrative law is grounded in a conception of the relationship between reviewing courts and agencies modeled on the relationship between appeals courts and trial courts in civil litigation. This appellate review model was not an inevitable foundation of administrative law, but it has had far-reaching consequences, and its origins are poorly understood. This Article details how the appellate review model emerged after 1906 as an improvised response by the U.S. Supreme Court to a political crisis brought on by aggressive judicial review of decisions of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Once the jerry-built model was in place, Congress signaled its approval, and an academic -- John Dickinson -- wrote a persuasive book extolling its virtues. As a result, the appellate review model became entrenched by the 1920's and eventually spread to all of administrative law. The early adoption of the appellate review model helps explain why the Supreme Court never seriously grappled with Article III problems created by the widespread use of administrative agencies to adjudicate cases once the New Deal and the expansion of the administrative state arrived. It also helps explain why the judiciary has played such a large role in the development of administrative policy in the United States relative to other legal systems.

Abstract
The New Zealand Food Bill is being passed amidst stern criticism of its content and the influence of multi-national corporations and the Codex Alimentarius Commission, whose food-safety standards motivated the bill. These concerns illustrate the large democratic and legitimisation deficits in global governance. One response to these criticisms and concerns is global administrative law, which focuses on promoting administrative law tools to enhance accountability. However, an examination of the Food Bill reinforces two main critiques of global administrative law: that it excludes addressing substance of international law and brackets democracy. I argue the limited GAL approach cannot be justified and the significant gaps in its approach require that it engage with democracy. I analyse the possibilities of global administrative law to engage with (to acknowledge and adopt) two theories of global democracy - deliberative and cosmopolitan - using the Food Bill as a case study.

Justice Wilson's concurring reasons for judgment in the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in National Corn Growers Assn. v. Canada (Import Tribunal) represent the most elaborate expression of her thinking about the rationales for judicial deference to the decisions of administrative tribunals and the methodology courts should employ in approaching judicial review of the decisions of administrative tribunals. A great deal of development has taken place in Canadian thinking about judicial review since that decision was released on November 8, 1990, but Justice Wilson's articulation of the reasons courts should defer to the interpretation given by tribunals to their enabling legislation continues to influence contemporary judicial review jurisprudence, as does her criticism of excessive segmentation of tribunal decisions during the course of judicial review. On the other hand, it was evident to commentators in the wake of the National Corn Growers decision that Justice Wilson's reasons were deficient as a unifying the ory of substantive judicial review of administrative decision-making. This paper seeks to evaluate Justice Wilson's reasoning in the National Corn Growers case in light of subsequent judicial attempts to develop a more comprehensive approach to common law judicial review of substantive administrative decision-making in Canada. The author concludes that Justice Wilson's approach to judicial review managed to avoid certain pitfalls that were to plague later attempts to develop a unified the ory of substantive judicial review. Nevertheless, in the author's view her reasons share with more recent jurisprudence the weakness that insufficient attention is paid to the considerations that justify judicial intervention notwithstanding a more general posture of deference to tribunal decision-making.

Public law notions seen from shari'a law perspective have not been duly discussed in Islamic countries. In the discourse of rule of law in Islam we are confronted with a dilemma , moral values of a religion are not compatible with the coercive legislative measures . Thus the authentic application of shari'a rules is feasible only if a scientific hermeneutic of shari'a law is adapted to the exigencies of today's modern life, while the outlook on the boundaries of hermeneutic remains obscure. Regarding the public finance in Islam and State owned banking system, in many Islamic countries both Shi'a concept banks and Sunni concept banks, while prohibiting usury have worked out a well established shari'a law compliant loan system in favor of the customers. Also economic democracy from shari'a law point of view finds its way through other means provided in shari'a rules (Shi'a or Sunni). The notion of an Islamic administrative law is rather misperceived. The actual polemic on governance and administrative law in Islam is considered as being an outcome of the conflict between shari'a based concepts and notions asserted by faquihs and jurists and the legal practices and usages of Islamic States since the expansion of Islamic territories (700 AD).