JUDICIAL ATTITUDES TO JUDICIAL REVIEW: A COMPARATIVE EXAMINATION OF JUSTIFICATIONS OFFERED FOR RESTRICTING THE SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN AUSTRALIA, CANADA AND ENGLAND

被引：0

作者：

Cassimatis, Anthony E. ^{[1
,2
]}

机构：

[1] Univ Queensland, TC Beirne Sch Law, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia

[2] Univ Queensland, Ctr Publ Int & Comparat Law, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia

来源：

MELBOURNE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW | 2010年 / 34卷 / 01期

关键词：

ADMINISTRATIVE-LAW; PUBLIC-LAW; JUDGE;

D O I：

暂无

中图分类号：

D9 [法律]; DF [法律];

学科分类号：

0301 ;

摘要：

Legislative reform of judicial review in Canada and Australia has encountered unexpected difficulties. Judicial attitudes appear to have been a factor in this. These attitudes, however, defy simple classification according to realist, functional or 'green light' critiques of judicial values. The history of legislative reform in Ontario and Australia appears far more complex. Other factors, particularly the precision (or otherwise) of the drafting of the legislative provisions, appear far more significant. Experiences in both Ontario and Australia also point to the continuing vitality of the traditional common law and equitable remedies. Judicial attitudes to judicial review appear to be an important source of this continuing vitality.

引用

页码：1 / 33

页数：33