Reconceptualising ‘Justiciability’: Crafting a Coherent Framework for Australia’s Unique Constitutional Context

Q3 Social Sciences Federal Law Review Pub Date : 2022-07-18 DOI:10.1177/0067205X221107408
Brandon Smith
{"title":"Reconceptualising ‘Justiciability’: Crafting a Coherent Framework for Australia’s Unique Constitutional Context","authors":"Brandon Smith","doi":"10.1177/0067205X221107408","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The concept of ‘justiciability’ in Australian federal jurisprudence has been described by the High Court as a ‘slippery term of indeterminate reference’. With the High Court yet to comprehensively consider the concept of justiciability, Australia’s jurisprudence has failed to develop a coherent doctrine which is apt to govern the outer limits of judicial power under Chapter III of the Constitution. This article argues the transplantation of UK justiciability jurisprudence into Australia’s constitutional context, as well as doctrinal inconsistencies in UK case law, have resulted in applications of the doctrine which undermine key principles of federal judicial power. Drawing on existing case law, this article proposes a reconceptualisation of justiciability into three categories — constitutional competence, institutional capacity and institutional legitimacy — as a principled framework to be applied and developed by Australian jurists going forward.","PeriodicalId":37273,"journal":{"name":"Federal Law Review","volume":"50 1","pages":"371 - 403"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Federal Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X221107408","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The concept of ‘justiciability’ in Australian federal jurisprudence has been described by the High Court as a ‘slippery term of indeterminate reference’. With the High Court yet to comprehensively consider the concept of justiciability, Australia’s jurisprudence has failed to develop a coherent doctrine which is apt to govern the outer limits of judicial power under Chapter III of the Constitution. This article argues the transplantation of UK justiciability jurisprudence into Australia’s constitutional context, as well as doctrinal inconsistencies in UK case law, have resulted in applications of the doctrine which undermine key principles of federal judicial power. Drawing on existing case law, this article proposes a reconceptualisation of justiciability into three categories — constitutional competence, institutional capacity and institutional legitimacy — as a principled framework to be applied and developed by Australian jurists going forward.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重新定义“公正性”:为澳大利亚独特的宪法背景构建一个连贯的框架
澳大利亚联邦判例中的“可审理性”概念被高等法院描述为“不确定参考的狡猾术语”。由于高等法院尚未全面考虑可审判性的概念,澳大利亚的判例法未能形成一个连贯的原则,适用于《宪法》第三章规定的司法权力的外部界限。本文认为,将英国的可审判性判例移植到澳大利亚的宪法背景中,以及英国判例法中的理论不一致,导致了该理论的应用,破坏了联邦司法权的关键原则。本文借鉴现有判例法,将可审判性重新定义为三类——宪法权限、制度能力和制度合法性——作为澳大利亚法学家未来应用和发展的原则框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Federal Law Review
Federal Law Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
期刊最新文献
No Place Like Home? Alienage, Popular Sovereignty and an Implied Freedom of Entry into Australia Under the Constitution Traversing Uncharted Territory? The Legislative and Regulatory Landscape of Heritable Human Genome Editing in Australia Foreign Interference and the Incremental Chilling of Free Speech Reviewing Review: Administrative Justice and the Immigration Assessment Authority Managing Ownership of Copyright in Research Publications to Increase the Public Benefits from Research
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1