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.
Schwartz provides a masterly exposition of administrative law through a comparative study of the French droit administratif, arguably the most sophisticated Continental model. As Vanderbilt points out in his introduction, this is an important field that involves much more than administrative procedure. It deals directly with some of the most crucial issues of modern government regarding the distribution of power between governmental units, the resulting effect on the freedom of the individual and on the strength and stability of the state. Reprint of the sole edition. "[T]his book represents a significant achievement.... Unlike so many volumes that roll off the press these days, it fills a real need; and, though perhaps not the definitive work in English on the subject, it fills it extremely well." --Frederic S. Burin, Columbia Law Review 54 (1954) 1016 Bernard Schwartz [1923-1997] was professor of law and director of the Institute of Comparative Law, New York University. He was the author of over fifty books, including The Code Napoleon and the Common-Law World (1956), the five-volume Commentary on the Constitution of the United States (1963-68), Constitutional Law: A Textbook (2d ed., 1979), Administrative Law: A Casebook (4th ed., 1994) and A History of the Supreme Court (1993).
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.
It is with the greatest pleasure that I add a few introductory remarks to the book of Dr. Mahendra Pal Singh on German administrative law. Between 1981 and 1982 Dr. Singh spent nearly two years in Heidelberg, doing re search partly at the South Asia Institute of the Ruprecht Karl University and partly at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law. During his stay in the Federal Republic of Germany, Dr. Singh studied the general principles of German administrative law in a careful and admirable manner, and he has now completed the present book which is based on his studies in Heidelberg. For several reasons Dr. Singh is especially qualified to write this book: His famil iarity with the administrative law of his home country has enabled him to look upon the German law with considerable objectivity; his knowledge of the German lan guage gave him access to the vast amount of German literature and court decisions; and Dr. Singh was able to penetrate this material with a searching and scholarly spirit. The final product seems to be the first comprehensive treatise in English on German administrative law.
Based on author's thesis (doctoral - University of Oxford, 2017) issued under title: Against monism and in favour of an anatomical approach to administrative law.
From two legal luminaries, a highly original framework for restoring confidence in a government bureaucracy increasingly derided as “the deep state.” Is the modern administrative state illegitimate? Unconstitutional? Unaccountable? Dangerous? Intolerable? American public law has long been riven by a persistent, serious conflict, a kind of low-grade cold war, over these questions. Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule argue that the administrative state can be redeemed, as long as public officials are constrained by what they call the morality of administrative law. Law and Leviathan elaborates a number of principles that underlie this moral regime. Officials who respect that morality never fail to make rules in the first place. They ensure transparency, so that people are made aware of the rules with which they must comply. They never abuse retroactivity, so that people can rely on current rules, which are not under constant threat of change. They make rules that are understandable and avoid issuing rules that contradict each other. These principles may seem simple, but they have a great deal of power. Already, without explicit enunciation, they limit the activities of administrative agencies every day. But we can aspire for better. In more robust form, these principles could address many of the concerns that have critics of the administrative state mourning what they see as the demise of the rule of law. The bureaucratic Leviathan may be an inescapable reality of complex modern democracies, but Sunstein and Vermeule show how we can at last make peace between those who accept its necessity and those who yearn for its downfall.
Many countries use and apply the common law. The common law world largely operates through statutes enacted by a country's democratic legislature. These statutes are drafted and interpreted according to a uniform system of rules, presumptions, principles and canons evolved over centuries by common law judges. In this book, Francis Bennion distills forty years of his prolific writings on statute law and statutory interpretation to provide valuable guidance on statutory interpretation applicable to all common law jurisdictions.
