File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1093/ojls/gqu005
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-84906854987
- WOS: WOS:000345777200003
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Taking a 'hard look' at 'irrationality': Substantive review of administrative discretion in the US and UK supreme courts
Title | Taking a 'hard look' at 'irrationality': Substantive review of administrative discretion in the US and UK supreme courts |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Administrative law Discretion Hard look review UK supreme court US supreme court |
Issue Date | 2014 |
Publisher | Oxford University Press. The Journal's website is located at https://academic.oup.com/ojls |
Citation | Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 2014, v. 34, n. 3, p. 481-510 How to Cite? |
Abstract | This article undertakes the heretofore untried task of documenting and explaining the antithetical case law of the American and UK Supreme Courts as to substantive review of administrative discretion over the past three decades. Despite sharing common legal origins and experiencing comparable aggrandisements of administrative power in the latter half of the 20th century, the two courts are now sharply divided by the standard levels of intensity and modi operandi they adopt in exercising arbitrariness and irrationality review, respectively, for instance, the UK Supreme Court has affirmed many more administrative acts than its US counterpart under both Wednesbury and anxious scrutiny review. In determining the standard intensity of substantive review with little or no guidance from statutory or human rights norms, America's and Britain's apex courts have taken their cues from the framework principles of their respective polities, as well as from the relative adequacy and efficiency of other oversight mechanisms. © The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/228200 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 1.4 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.386 |
SSRN | |
ISI Accession Number ID |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Ip, Eric C. | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2016-08-01T06:45:26Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2016-08-01T06:45:26Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2014 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 2014, v. 34, n. 3, p. 481-510 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 0143-6503 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/228200 | - |
dc.description.abstract | This article undertakes the heretofore untried task of documenting and explaining the antithetical case law of the American and UK Supreme Courts as to substantive review of administrative discretion over the past three decades. Despite sharing common legal origins and experiencing comparable aggrandisements of administrative power in the latter half of the 20th century, the two courts are now sharply divided by the standard levels of intensity and modi operandi they adopt in exercising arbitrariness and irrationality review, respectively, for instance, the UK Supreme Court has affirmed many more administrative acts than its US counterpart under both Wednesbury and anxious scrutiny review. In determining the standard intensity of substantive review with little or no guidance from statutory or human rights norms, America's and Britain's apex courts have taken their cues from the framework principles of their respective polities, as well as from the relative adequacy and efficiency of other oversight mechanisms. © The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.publisher | Oxford University Press. The Journal's website is located at https://academic.oup.com/ojls | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Oxford Journal of Legal Studies | - |
dc.subject | Administrative law | - |
dc.subject | Discretion | - |
dc.subject | Hard look review | - |
dc.subject | UK supreme court | - |
dc.subject | US supreme court | - |
dc.title | Taking a 'hard look' at 'irrationality': Substantive review of administrative discretion in the US and UK supreme courts | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.description.nature | link_to_subscribed_fulltext | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1093/ojls/gqu005 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-84906854987 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 34 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 3 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 481 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 510 | - |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1464-3820 | - |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000345777200003 | - |
dc.identifier.ssrn | 3471513 | - |
dc.identifier.hkulrp | 2019/077 | - |
dc.identifier.issnl | 0143-6503 | - |