This book investigates judicial deference to the administration in judicial review, a concept and legal practice that can be found to a greater or lesser degree in every constitutional system. In each system, deference functions differently, because the positioning of the judiciary with regard to the separation of powers, the role of the courts as a mechanism of checks and balances, and the scope of judicial review differ. In addition, the way deference works within the constitutional system itself is complex, multi-faceted and often covert. Although judicial deference to the administration is a topical theme in comparative administrative law, a general examination of national systems is still lacking. As such, a theoretical and empirical review is called for. Accordingly, this book presents national reports from 15 jurisdictions, ranging from Argentina, Canada and the US, to the EU. Constituting the outcome of the 20th General Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law, held in Fukuoka, Japan in July 2018, it offers a valuable and unique resource for the study of comparative administrative law.

Represents the first systematic and comparative study of judicial deference Empirically investigates a country-based system Offers a combination of theory and national practice

Autorentext
Guobin Zhu, Professor of Law at School of Law, Director of Human Rights Law and Policy Forum, City University of Hong Kong; Concurrently, Director of City University of Hong Kong Press. BA, MA, LLM (RenminU of China, Beijing), LLM (HKU, Hong Kong), PhD and HDR (Aix-Marseille University, France). Titular Member, International Academy of Comparative Law; Council Member, Chinese Association of Constitutional Law, and Chinese Judicial Studies Association. Areas of Research and Interest: Comparative Constitutional and Administrative Law, Chinse and Hong Kong Constitutional and Administrative Law, Human Rights Law, and Chinese Public Administration.

Inhalt

Deference to the Administration in Judicial Review: Comparative Perspectives.- Deference to the Administration in Judicial Review in Argentina.- Deference to the Administration in Judicial Review in Australia.- Comparer la déférence judiciaire : regards canadiens vers l'extérieur.- Deference to the Administration in Judicial Review in China.- Deference to the Administration in Judicial Review in the Czech Republic.- Deference to the Administration in Judicial Review in Denmark.- Deference to the Administration in Judicial Review: The European Union.- Deference to the Administration in Judicial Review in Finland.- A Principled Approach to Judicial Deference for Hong Kong.- Judicial Deference to the Administration in Israel.- Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Italy: Beyond Deference?.- Deference to the Administration in Judicial Review in Japan.- Deference to the Administration in Judicial Review: The Case of the Netherlands.- The Dreadful Truth and Transparent Fictions: Deference in New Zealand Administrative Law.- Deference to the Public Administration in Judicial Review: A Polish Perspective'The Notion of a Subjective or Unfettered Discretion is Contrary to the Rule of Law': Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Singapore.- Full Judicial Review or Administrative Discretion? A Swedish Perspective on Deference to the Administration.- Judicial Deference to the Administration in the United States.