Abolishing irrationality: a decision so unreasonable that no reasonable judiciary could ever come to it?

Ong Ken Wei
{"title":"Abolishing irrationality: a decision so unreasonable that no reasonable judiciary could ever come to it?","authors":"Ong Ken Wei","doi":"10.1080/14729342.2022.2058212","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Much ink has been spilt over the workings of irrationality review and its continuing relevance. Absent in large part, however, is an examination of these issues situated outside the English context. This article seeks to fill that gap from a Singaporean perspective. It will be argued that, as a ground of review, the principle of rationality is amply adequate, and that its retention as part of Singaporean administrative law allows for an articulation of our own approach towards judicial review. The observations and arguments made therein may be of interest to other common law jurisdictions which find themselves at a crossroads.","PeriodicalId":35148,"journal":{"name":"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2022.2058212","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

ABSTRACT Much ink has been spilt over the workings of irrationality review and its continuing relevance. Absent in large part, however, is an examination of these issues situated outside the English context. This article seeks to fill that gap from a Singaporean perspective. It will be argued that, as a ground of review, the principle of rationality is amply adequate, and that its retention as part of Singaporean administrative law allows for an articulation of our own approach towards judicial review. The observations and arguments made therein may be of interest to other common law jurisdictions which find themselves at a crossroads.
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
废除非理性:一个如此不合理的决定,以至于任何合理的司法机构都无法做出?
摘要关于非理性审查的运作方式及其持续相关性,人们已经泼了很多墨水。然而,在很大程度上,没有对这些问题进行英语语境之外的考察。本文试图从新加坡的角度来填补这一空白。有人会说,作为审查的依据,理性原则是充分的,作为新加坡行政法的一部分,它的保留允许我们阐明自己的司法审查方法。其中的意见和论点可能会引起其他处于十字路口的普通法司法管辖区的兴趣。
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
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
期刊最新文献
Blurring boundaries on ‘taking part’ in an unlawful assembly: HKSAR v Choy Kin Yue (2022) 25 HKCFAR 360 ‘The law has taken all my rights away’: on India’s conundrum of able-normative death with dignity ‘Delicate plants’, ‘loose cannons’, or ‘a marriage of true minds’? The role of academic literature in judicial decision-making Legal transplantation of minors’ contracts in India and Malaysia: ‘Weak’ Watson and a ‘misfitted’ transplant Corruption and the constitutional position of the Overseas Territories
×
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