Comparative Administrative Law
Show Less

Comparative Administrative Law

Edited by Susan Rose-Ackerman and Peter L. Lindseth

This research handbook is a comprehensive overview of the field of comparative administrative law. The specially commissioned chapters in this landmark volume represent a broad, multi-method approach combining perspectives from history and social science with more strictly legal analyses. Comparisons of the United States, continental Europe, and the British Commonwealth are complemented by contributions that focus on Latin America, Africa, and Asia. The work aims to stimulate comparative research on public law, reaching across countries and scholarly disciplines.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 26: Judicial Review of Questions of Law: A Comparative Perspective

Paul Craig


Paul Craig* All systems of administrative law must face and resolve a remarkably similar set of issues. They will have to elaborate tests for review of law, fact and discretion. Comparative law enables us to analyze diverse approaches to the same issue, while being properly mindful of legal/cultural reasons for those differences. It is possible through comparative discourse to consider whether doctrinal variations across legal systems are relatively minor, so that the respective regimes, in effect, do the same thing in slightly different ways, or whether doctrinal variants reflect a deeper normative divergence. With that question in mind, this chapter focuses on the test for judicial review of questions of law in the UK, USA, Canada and the EU. The topic is an important aspect of judicial review and is fertile for comparative analysis. The analysis reveals the divergences between the legal systems, and sets out the four principal judicial strategies used. They are judicial substitution of judgment over jurisdictional legal issues; substitution of judgment by the reviewing court on all issues of law; substitution of judgment on certain legal issues and rationality review on others where the principal criterion for the divide is legislative clarity in defining the disputed term; and, finally, substitution of judgment and rationality review where the criterion for the divide is a broader range of functional considerations. Exigencies of space preclude detailed treatment of the kind found in the relevant domestic literature. However, the comparative analysis, drawing on this literature, will, I hope, inform the...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.