000			02143nam a22002171c 4500
005			20220507115642.0
008			140929s2000 enk ob 100 0 eng d
020			_a9781472558916
040			_aMAIN
082	0	0	_a347.41/012
245	0	0	_aJudicial review and the constitution _h[electronic resource] / _cedited by Christopher Forsyth.
300			_a1 online resource (xxxvii, 442 pages)
500			_aBloomsbury Pub Ebook
504			_aIncludes bibliographical references
520	8		_aThis collection of essays presents opposing sides of the debate over the foundations of judicial review. In this work,however, the discussion of whether the 'ultra vires' doctrine is best characterised as a central principle of administrative law or as a harmless, justificatory fiction is located in the highly topical and political context of constitutional change. The thorough jurisprudential analysis of the relative merits of models of 'legislative intention' and 'judicial creativity' provides a sound base for consideration of the constitutional problems arising out of legislative devolution and the Human Rights Act 1998. As the historical orthodoxy is challenged by growing institutional independence, leading figures in the field offer competing perspectives on the future of judicial review. "Confucius was wrong to say that it is a curse to live in interesting times. We are witnessing the development of a constitutional philosophy which recognises fundamental values and gives them effect in the mediation of law to the people". (Sir John Laws) Contributors Nick Bamforth, Paul Craig, David Dyzenhaus, Mark Elliott, David Feldman, Christopher Forsyth, Brigid Hadfield, Jeffrey Jowell QC, Sir John Laws, Dawn Oliver, Sir Stephen Sedley, Mark Walters. With short responses by: TRS Allan, Stephen Bailey, Robert Carnworth, Martin Loughlin, Michael Taggart, Sir William Wade
650		0	_aJudicial review of administrative acts
700	1		_aForsyth, C. F.,
710	2		_aUniversity of Cambridge. _bCentre for Public Law.
856	4	0	_uhttps://doi.org/10.5040/9781472558916?locatt=label:secondary_bloomsburyCollections
942			_cEBK
999			_c17386 _d17386