8. 实质公平

2区 法学 Q1 Social Sciences Administrative Law Review Pub Date : 2015-04-01 DOI:10.1093/HE/9780198714507.003.0008
Timothy Endicott
{"title":"8. 实质公平","authors":"Timothy Endicott","doi":"10.1093/HE/9780198714507.003.0008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter shows that judges must substitute their own judgment for that of an administrative authority on some issues, in order to give effect to the principle of legality. When there is reason for non-deferential judicial review, deference would mean abandoning the rule of law. The more interventionist grounds on which judges will control the substance of some decisions—relevance, proportionality, and legitimate expectations—may involve little deference, depending on the type of decision and the context in which it is made. Each of the interventionist doctrines gives the judges the opportunity to do justice for a claimant and to improve public administration. For the very same reasons, each doctrine poses a danger that the judges will make themselves into surrogate administrators by overextending the grounds of judicial review","PeriodicalId":51730,"journal":{"name":"Administrative Law Review","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"8. Substantive fairness\",\"authors\":\"Timothy Endicott\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/HE/9780198714507.003.0008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter shows that judges must substitute their own judgment for that of an administrative authority on some issues, in order to give effect to the principle of legality. When there is reason for non-deferential judicial review, deference would mean abandoning the rule of law. The more interventionist grounds on which judges will control the substance of some decisions—relevance, proportionality, and legitimate expectations—may involve little deference, depending on the type of decision and the context in which it is made. Each of the interventionist doctrines gives the judges the opportunity to do justice for a claimant and to improve public administration. For the very same reasons, each doctrine poses a danger that the judges will make themselves into surrogate administrators by overextending the grounds of judicial review\",\"PeriodicalId\":51730,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Administrative Law Review\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Administrative Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/HE/9780198714507.003.0008\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"法学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Administrative Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/HE/9780198714507.003.0008","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这一章表明,在某些问题上,法官必须以自己的判断代替行政机关的判断,以实现合法性原则。当有理由进行不尊重的司法审查时,尊重就意味着放弃法治。法官控制某些决定的实质——相关性、相称性和合法预期——所依据的更多的干预主义理由可能涉及很少的尊重,这取决于决定的类型和做出决定的背景。每一种干涉主义学说都给法官提供了为原告伸张正义和改善公共行政的机会。出于同样的原因,每一种原则都带来了一种危险,即法官会通过过度扩展司法审查的理由而使自己成为代理行政官
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
8. Substantive fairness
This chapter shows that judges must substitute their own judgment for that of an administrative authority on some issues, in order to give effect to the principle of legality. When there is reason for non-deferential judicial review, deference would mean abandoning the rule of law. The more interventionist grounds on which judges will control the substance of some decisions—relevance, proportionality, and legitimate expectations—may involve little deference, depending on the type of decision and the context in which it is made. Each of the interventionist doctrines gives the judges the opportunity to do justice for a claimant and to improve public administration. For the very same reasons, each doctrine poses a danger that the judges will make themselves into surrogate administrators by overextending the grounds of judicial review
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Approach of the Administrative Court of Justice regarding to Extension of the Effect of Annulment of Regulations to the Time of Approval Analysis of the Effect of Whistleblowing on the Fiscal Discipline of Govermental companies Investigating the Requirements of the Decentralization System in the Social Security Organization Legislative policy of Iran Customs Law and its damages Investigating the violation of individuals' rights; An independent and neglected direction in the judicial supervision of the General Assembly of the Court of Administrative Justice
×
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