A new framework for understanding contemporary administrative law, through a comparative analysis of case law from Australia, Canada, England, Ireland, and New Zealand. The author argues that the field is structured by four values: individual self-realisation, good administration, electoral legitimacy and decisional autonomy.
The recognition and enforcement of legitimate expectations by courts has been a striking feature of English law since R v North and East Devon Health Authority; ex parte Coughlan [2001] 3 QB 213. Although the substantive form of legitimate expectation adopted in Coughlan was quickly accepted by English courts and received a generally favourable response from public law scholars, the doctrine of that case has largely been rejected in other common law jurisdictions. The central principles of Coughlan have been rejected by courts in common law jurisdictions outside the UK for a range of reasons, such as incompatibility with local constitutional doctrine, or because they mark an undesirable drift towards merits review. The sceptical and critical reception to Coughlan outside England is a striking contrast to the reception the case received within the UK. This book provides a detailed scholarly analysis of these issues and considers the doctrine of legitimate expectations both in England and elsewhere in the common law world.
The Handbook of International Investment Law and Policy is a one-stop reference source. This Handbook covers the main conceptual questions in a logical, scholarly yet easy to comprehend manner. It is based on a truly global vision insisting particularly on Global South related issues and developments. In this respect, the Handbook of International Investment Law and Policy provides an excellent modern treatment of international investment law which is one of the fastest growing areas of international economic law. Professor Julien Chaisse, Professor Leïla Choukroune, and Professor Sufian Jusoh are the editors-in-chief of the Handbook of International Investment Law and Policy, a 1,500-page reference book, which is anticipated becoming one of the most influenced reference books in the international economic law areas. This Handbook is a highly comprehensive set of four volumes of original materials designed to cover all facets of international investment law and policy. The chapters, written by world-leading experts, explore key ideas and debates in relation to: international investment substantive law (Volume I), Investor-state dispute settlement (Volume II); interaction between international investment law and other fields of international law (Volume III); and, the new trends and challenges for international investment law (Volume IV). The Handbook will feature more than 80 contributions from leading experts (academics, lawyers, government officials), including Vivienne Bath, M. Sornarajah, Mélida Hodgson, Rahul Donde, Roberto Echandi, Andrew Mitchell, Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann, Christina L. Beharry, Krista Nadakavukaren Schefer, Leon Trakman, Prabhash Ranjan, Emmanuel Jacomy, Mariel Dimsey, Stavros Brekoulakis, Romesh Weeramantry, Nathalie Bernasconi-Osterwalder, David Collins, Damilola S. Olawuyi, Katia Fach Gomez, Jaemin Lee, Alejandro Carballo-Leyda, Patrick W. Pearsall, Mark Feldman, Surya Deva, Luke Nottage, Rafael Leal-Arcas, James Nedumpara, Rodrigo Polanco, etc. This Handbook will be an essential reference tool for students and scholars of international economic law. Policy makers and researchers alike will find the Handbook of International Investment Law and Policy useful for years to come.
Winner of the 2018 Inner Temple New Authors Book Prize and the 2016 SLS Peter Birks Prize for Outstanding Legal Scholarship. Damages and Human Rights is a major work on awards of damages for violations of human rights that will be of compelling interest to practitioners, judges and academics alike. Damages for breaches of human rights is emerging as an important and practically significant field of law, yet the rules and principles governing such awards and their theoretical foundations remain underexplored, while courts continue to struggle to articulate a coherent law of human rights damages. The book's focus is English law, but it draws heavily on comparative material from a range of common law jurisdictions, as well as the jurisprudence of international courts. The current law on when damages can be obtained and how they are assessed is set out in detail and analysed comprehensively. The theoretical foundations of human rights damages are examined with a view to enhancing our understanding of the remedy and resolving the currently troubled state of human rights damages jurisprudence. The book argues that in awarding damages in human rights cases the courts should adopt a vindicatory approach, modelled on those rules and principles applied in tort cases when basic rights are violated. Other approaches are considered in detail, including the current 'mirror' approach which ties the domestic approach to damages to the European Court of Human Rights' approach to monetary compensation; an interest-balancing approach where the damages are dependent on a judicial balancing of individual and public interests; and approaches drawn from the law of state liability in EU law and United States constitutional law. The analysis has important implications for our understanding of fundamental issues including the interrelationship between public law and private law, the theoretical and conceptual foundations of human rights law and the law of torts, the nature and functions of the damages remedy, the connection between rights and remedies, the intersection of domestic and international law, and the impact of damages liability on public funds and public administration. The book was the winner of the 2016 SLS Peter Birks Prize for Outstanding Legal Scholarship and the 2018 Inner Temple New Authors Book Prize.
This original and stimulating book is the first systematic study of the principle of `legitimate expectations' in administrative law to appear in the English language. The notion of reasonable or legitimate expectations has played a central role in the development of administrative law over the last thirty years and it remains one of the most contentious and most frequently invoked grounds of judicial review. In this book Dr Schonberg provides a detailed, comparative, and critical analysis of that notion He begins by clarifying why administrative law should protect expectations at all, by linking expectations to fairness, trust in administration, and the Rule of Law with its requirements of legal certainty and formal equality. In the light of this framework he examines in detail the principles and rules which contribute to the protection of expectations. The scope of this analysis is broad, looking both at procedural and substantive principles of administrative law as wellas principles of tort liability and stautory compensation. In all of these areas, English law is carefully compared with French and EC law and is shown how the three legal systems often reach similar outcomes by the application of different legal principles and rules. The current state of English law is examined critically in the light of the comparative study of French and EC law, and a number of original suggestions for legal reform are presented. They include the adoption of: a generalprinciple of irrevocability of intra vires administrative decisions, a distinct principle of substantive legitimate expectations subject to a `significant imbalance' threshold for judicial intervention, and a statutory right to compensation for loss caused by `sufficiently serious' violations of public law.
For centuries, courts across the common law world have developed systems of law by building bodies of judicial decisions. In deciding individual cases, common law courts settle litigation and move the law in new directions. By virtue of their place at the top of the judicial hierarchy, courts at the apex of common law systems are unique in that their decisions and, in particular, the language used in those decisions, resonate through the legal system. Although both the common law and apex courts have been studied extensively, scholars have paid less attention to the relationship between the two. By analyzing apex courts and the common law from multiple angles, this book offers an entry point for scholars in disciplines related to law - such as political science, history, and sociology - who are seeking a deeper understanding and new insights as to how the common law applies to and is relevant within their own disciplines.
General Principles of Law in Investment Arbitration surveys the function of general principles in the field of international investment law, particularly in investment arbitration. The authors’ analysis provides a representative case study of how this informal source operates alongside and in the absence of other sources of applicable law. The contributions are divided into two parts, devoted respectively to substantive principles and procedural ones. The principles discussed in the book are selected for their currency in the practice, their contested nature and their relevance.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once remarked that the theory of an evolving, "living" Constitution effectively "rendered the Constitution useless." He wanted a "dead Constitution," he joked, arguing it must be interpreted as the framers originally understood it. In The Living Constitution, leading constitutional scholar David Strauss forcefully argues against the claims of Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork, and other "originalists," explaining in clear, jargon-free English how the Constitution can sensibly evolve, without falling into the anything-goes flexibility caricatured by opponents. The living Constitution is not an out-of-touch liberal theory, Strauss further shows, but a mainstream tradition of American jurisprudence--a common-law approach to the Constitution, rooted in the written document but also based on precedent. Each generation has contributed precedents that guide and confine judicial rulings, yet allow us to meet the demands of today, not force us to follow the commands of the long-dead Founders. Strauss explores how judicial decisions adapted the Constitution's text (and contradicted original intent) to produce some of our most profound accomplishments: the end of racial segregation, the expansion of women's rights, and the freedom of speech. By contrast, originalism suffers from fatal flaws: the impossibility of truly divining original intent, the difficulty of adapting eighteenth-century understandings to the modern world, and the pointlessness of chaining ourselves to decisions made centuries ago. David Strauss is one of our leading authorities on Constitutional law--one with practical knowledge as well, having served as Assistant Solicitor General of the United States and argued eighteen cases before the United States Supreme Court. Now he offers a profound new understanding of how the Constitution can remain vital to life in the twenty-first century.
