File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Taking a 'hard look' at 'irrationality': Substantive review of administrative discretion in the US and UK supreme courts

TitleTaking a 'hard look' at 'irrationality': Substantive review of administrative discretion in the US and UK supreme courts
Authors
KeywordsAdministrative law
Issue Date2014
Citation
Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 2014, v. 34, n. 3, p. 481-510 How to Cite?
AbstractThis article undertakes the heretofore untried task of documenting and explaining the antithetical case law of the American and UK Supreme Courts as to substantive review of administrative discretion over the past three decades. Despite sharing common legal origins and experiencing comparable aggrandisements of administrative power in the latter half of the 20th century, the two courts are now sharply divided by the standard levels of intensity and modi operandi they adopt in exercising arbitrariness and irrationality review, respectively, for instance, the UK Supreme Court has affirmed many more administrative acts than its US counterpart under both Wednesbury and anxious scrutiny review. In determining the standard intensity of substantive review with little or no guidance from statutory or human rights norms, America's and Britain's apex courts have taken their cues from the framework principles of their respective polities, as well as from the relative adequacy and efficiency of other oversight mechanisms. © The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/228200
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 0.887
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.332

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorIp, Eric C.-
dc.date.accessioned2016-08-01T06:45:26Z-
dc.date.available2016-08-01T06:45:26Z-
dc.date.issued2014-
dc.identifier.citationOxford Journal of Legal Studies, 2014, v. 34, n. 3, p. 481-510-
dc.identifier.issn0143-6503-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/228200-
dc.description.abstractThis article undertakes the heretofore untried task of documenting and explaining the antithetical case law of the American and UK Supreme Courts as to substantive review of administrative discretion over the past three decades. Despite sharing common legal origins and experiencing comparable aggrandisements of administrative power in the latter half of the 20th century, the two courts are now sharply divided by the standard levels of intensity and modi operandi they adopt in exercising arbitrariness and irrationality review, respectively, for instance, the UK Supreme Court has affirmed many more administrative acts than its US counterpart under both Wednesbury and anxious scrutiny review. In determining the standard intensity of substantive review with little or no guidance from statutory or human rights norms, America's and Britain's apex courts have taken their cues from the framework principles of their respective polities, as well as from the relative adequacy and efficiency of other oversight mechanisms. © The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofOxford Journal of Legal Studies-
dc.subjectAdministrative law-
dc.titleTaking a 'hard look' at 'irrationality': Substantive review of administrative discretion in the US and UK supreme courts-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.natureLink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/ojls/gqu005-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84906854987-
dc.identifier.volume34-
dc.identifier.issue3-
dc.identifier.spage481-
dc.identifier.epage510-
dc.identifier.eissn1464-3820-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats