Mixing Writs with Rights: The Implications for Public Law in Sri Lanka

Q3 Social Sciences Asian Journal of Comparative Law Pub Date : 2023-03-28 DOI:10.1017/asjcl.2023.7
Mario Gomez
{"title":"Mixing Writs with Rights: The Implications for Public Law in Sri Lanka","authors":"Mario Gomez","doi":"10.1017/asjcl.2023.7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Beginning around 1990, judicial interpretation transformed public law in Sri Lanka by blending writs with fundamental rights. On the one hand, the Supreme Court has defined and expanded the constitutional right ‘to equality and equal protection of the law’ by drawing on administrative law concepts of natural justice, reasonableness, legitimate expectation, the duty to provide reasons for decision-making, and proportionality. On the other hand, judges have relied on the Bill of Rights as a standard to assess the decisions of public authorities in writ matters. This relationship between the writs and the rights has had important implications for the growth of public law in Sri Lanka. There has also emerged an incipient ground of review, ‘rights-based review’, as part of the writ jurisdiction, and the ‘public trust doctrine’ in fundamental rights review. Public law has been strengthened by the growth of public interest litigation and the use of new judicial remedies. This article looks at how the writ jurisdiction and rights-based review have evolved in recent times and considers how the two remedies have been used and fused, in a country where the legal and constitutional history has taken a different trajectory to some other post-colonial societies. The article concludes by arguing that this fusion of constitutional and administrative law concepts, together with the expansion in the rules of standing and the emergence of the new concepts of public trust doctrine and fairness, have generated a more robust legal framework that can better protect constitutional rights and democratic freedoms.","PeriodicalId":39405,"journal":{"name":"Asian Journal of Comparative Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Journal of Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/asjcl.2023.7","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

Beginning around 1990, judicial interpretation transformed public law in Sri Lanka by blending writs with fundamental rights. On the one hand, the Supreme Court has defined and expanded the constitutional right ‘to equality and equal protection of the law’ by drawing on administrative law concepts of natural justice, reasonableness, legitimate expectation, the duty to provide reasons for decision-making, and proportionality. On the other hand, judges have relied on the Bill of Rights as a standard to assess the decisions of public authorities in writ matters. This relationship between the writs and the rights has had important implications for the growth of public law in Sri Lanka. There has also emerged an incipient ground of review, ‘rights-based review’, as part of the writ jurisdiction, and the ‘public trust doctrine’ in fundamental rights review. Public law has been strengthened by the growth of public interest litigation and the use of new judicial remedies. This article looks at how the writ jurisdiction and rights-based review have evolved in recent times and considers how the two remedies have been used and fused, in a country where the legal and constitutional history has taken a different trajectory to some other post-colonial societies. The article concludes by arguing that this fusion of constitutional and administrative law concepts, together with the expansion in the rules of standing and the emergence of the new concepts of public trust doctrine and fairness, have generated a more robust legal framework that can better protect constitutional rights and democratic freedoms.
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
将令状与权利混为一谈:对斯里兰卡公法的启示
从1990年左右开始,司法解释通过将令状与基本权利相结合,改变了斯里兰卡的公法。一方面,最高法院借鉴了自然公正、合理、合法期望、提供决策理由的义务和相称性等行政法概念,定义并扩大了“平等和平等保护法律”的宪法权利。另一方面,法官们以《权利法案》为标准来评估公共当局在令状事项上的决定。令状和权利之间的这种关系对斯里兰卡公法的发展产生了重要影响。作为令状管辖权的一部分,“基于权利的审查”和基本权利审查中的“公共信任原则”也出现了一个初步的审查基础。公共利益诉讼的发展和新的司法补救措施的使用加强了公法。本文着眼于令状管辖权和基于权利的审查在近年来是如何演变的,并考虑了在一个法律和宪法历史与其他一些后殖民社会不同的国家,这两种补救措施是如何被使用和融合的。文章最后认为,宪法和行政法概念的融合,加上地位规则的扩大以及公共信任原则和公平新概念的出现,产生了一个更强有力的法律框架,可以更好地保护宪法权利和民主自由。
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
Asian Journal of Comparative Law
Asian Journal of Comparative Law Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: The Asian Journal of Comparative Law (AsJCL) is the leading forum for research and discussion of the law and legal systems of Asia. It embraces work that is theoretical, empirical, socio-legal, doctrinal or comparative that relates to one or more Asian legal systems, as well as work that compares one or more Asian legal systems with non-Asian systems. The Journal seeks articles which display an intimate knowledge of Asian legal systems, and thus provide a window into the way they work in practice. The AsJCL is an initiative of the Asian Law Institute (ASLI), an association established by thirteen leading law schools in Asia and with a rapidly expanding membership base across Asia and in other regions around the world.
期刊最新文献
International Sanctions and the Rule of Law How Can Malaysian Courts Consistently Perform Meaningful Constitutional Rights Review? Lessons from Past Cases and the Way Forward Confused Purposes and Inconsistent Adjudication: An Assessment of Bail Decisions in Delhi's Courts Soviet Legacy of Vietnam's Intellectual Property Law: Big Brother is (No Longer) Watching You – CORRIGENDUM Conceptualising State-Centric Mediation: An Analysis of China's Foreign Investment Complaints Mechanism – ERRATUM
×
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