Format:
xxxvii, 442 Seiten
Edition:
Online-Ausgabe [London] Bloomsbury Publishing 07 September 2014 1 Online-Ressource
ISBN:
9781472558916
Series Statement:
Bloomsbury collections
Content:
PART I THE DEBATE BEGINS -- 1. Is the Ultra Vires Rule the Basis of Judicial Review? -- Professor Dawn Oliver -- 2. Of Fig Leaves and Fairy Tales: The Ultra Vires Doctrine, the Sovereignty of Parliament and Judicial Review -- Christopher Forsyth -- 3. Ultra Vires and the Foundations of Judicial Review -- Professor Paul Craig -- 4. Illegality: The Problem of Jurisdiction -- Lord Justice Laws -- 5. The Ultra Vires Doctrine in a Constitutional Setting: Still the Central Principle of Administrative Law -- Mark Elliott -- PART II THE JURISPRUDENTIAL DEBATE -- 6. Ultra Vires and Institutional Interdependence -- Nicholas Bamforth -- 7. Form and Substance in the Rule of Law: A Democratic Justification for Judicial Review -- Professor David Dyzenhaus -- 8. Judicial Review and the Meaning of Law -- Lord Justice Laws -- PART III CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW -- 9. The Foundations of Review, Devolved Power and Delegated Power -- Professor Brigid Hadfield -- 10. The Courts, Devolution and Judicial Review -- Professor Paul Craig -- 11. Convention Rights and Substantive Ultra Vires -- Professor David Feldman -- 12. Fundamental Rights as Interpretative Constructs: The Constitutional -- Mark Elliott
Content:
This collection of essays presents opposing sides of the debate over the foundations of judicial review. In this work,however, the discussion of whether the 'ultra vires' doctrine is best characterised as a central principle of administrative law or as a harmless, justificatory fiction is located in the highly topical and political context of constitutional change. The thorough jurisprudential analysis of the relative merits of models of 'legislative intention' and 'judicial creativity' provides a sound base for consideration of the constitutional problems arising out of legislative devolution and the Human Rights Act 1998. As the historical orthodoxy is challenged by growing institutional independence, leading figures in the field offer competing perspectives on the future of judicial review. "Confucius was wrong to say that it is a curse to live in interesting times. We are witnessing the development of a constitutional philosophy which recognises fundamental values and gives them effect in the mediation of law to the people". (Sir John Laws) Contributors Nick Bamforth, Paul Craig, David Dyzenhaus, Mark Elliott, David Feldman, Christopher Forsyth, Brigid Hadfield, Jeffrey Jowell QC, Sir John Laws, Dawn Oliver, Sir Stephen Sedley, Mark Walters. With short responses by: TRS Allan, Stephen Bailey, Robert Carnworth, Martin Loughlin, Michael Taggart, Sir William Wade
Note:
Barrierefreier Inhalt: Compliant with Level AA of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. Content is displayed as HTML full text which can easily be resized or read with assistive technology, with mark-up that allows screen readers and keyboard-only users to navigate easily
Additional Edition:
ISBN 9781841131054
Additional Edition:
Erscheint auch als
Additional Edition:
Elektronische Reproduktion von Judicial review and the constitution Oxford [u.a.] : Hart Publ., 2000 ISBN 1841131059
Language:
English
Subjects:
Law
Keywords:
Großbritannien
;
Normenkontrolle
;
Großbritannien
;
Normenkontrolle
;
Ultra-Vires-Lehre
;
Verfassungsrecht
;
Konferenzschrift
DOI:
10.5040/9781472558916
URL:
Volltext
(lizenzpflichtig)
URL:
Volltext
(lizenzpflichtig)
