File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Supplementary
-
Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Proportionality, Unreasonableness and a Unified Model: Reframing the Spectrum of Intensity of Judicial Review
Title | Proportionality, Unreasonableness and a Unified Model: Reframing the Spectrum of Intensity of Judicial Review |
---|---|
Authors | |
Issue Date | 2021 |
Publisher | Sweet & Maxwell Asia. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.hku.hk/law/hklj/ |
Citation | Hong Kong Law Journal, 2021, v. 51 n. pt. 1, p. 85-113 How to Cite? |
Abstract | One of the most contested issues in common law public law is the relationship between proportionality and reasonableness in judicial review. Neither the bifurcated model that draws a rigid line between the two standards nor the parallel mode that recognises both as general standards of review seems to be satisfactory, as courts always swing between these two standards resulting in legal uncertainty. This article attempts to suggest a unified model that is based on the jurisprudence of the CFA. First, it argues that as proportionality and reasonableness have overlapping elements, proportionality can replace reasonableness as a single standard of review by organising these elements within a more structured argumentation framework, which ultimately increases legal certainty. Second, this article highlights the similarities between Wednesbury unreasonableness and “manifestly without reasonable foundation”, which is a deferential standard for assessing proportionality. The similarities create an opportunity for Wednesbury unreasonableness being merged into unified proportionality and being part of the spectrum of intensity of proportionality review. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/304975 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 0.3 2020 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.112 |
SSRN |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Xiao, S | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-10-05T02:37:56Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2021-10-05T02:37:56Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2021 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Hong Kong Law Journal, 2021, v. 51 n. pt. 1, p. 85-113 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 0378-0600 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/304975 | - |
dc.description.abstract | One of the most contested issues in common law public law is the relationship between proportionality and reasonableness in judicial review. Neither the bifurcated model that draws a rigid line between the two standards nor the parallel mode that recognises both as general standards of review seems to be satisfactory, as courts always swing between these two standards resulting in legal uncertainty. This article attempts to suggest a unified model that is based on the jurisprudence of the CFA. First, it argues that as proportionality and reasonableness have overlapping elements, proportionality can replace reasonableness as a single standard of review by organising these elements within a more structured argumentation framework, which ultimately increases legal certainty. Second, this article highlights the similarities between Wednesbury unreasonableness and “manifestly without reasonable foundation”, which is a deferential standard for assessing proportionality. The similarities create an opportunity for Wednesbury unreasonableness being merged into unified proportionality and being part of the spectrum of intensity of proportionality review. | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.publisher | Sweet & Maxwell Asia. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.hku.hk/law/hklj/ | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Hong Kong Law Journal | - |
dc.title | Proportionality, Unreasonableness and a Unified Model: Reframing the Spectrum of Intensity of Judicial Review | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.description.nature | link_to_subscribed_fulltext | - |
dc.identifier.hkuros | 326419 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 51 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | pt. 1 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 85 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 113 | - |
dc.publisher.place | Hong Kong | - |
dc.identifier.ssrn | 3845338 | - |
dc.identifier.hkulrp | 2021/025 | - |