Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorJordão, Eduardo Ferreira
dc.contributor.authorRose-Ackerman, Susan
dc.date.accessioned2017-11-22T12:50:14Z
dc.date.available2017-11-22T12:50:14Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.identifier.citationJordao, Eduardo Ferreira and Rose-Ackerman, Susan, Judicial Review of Executive Policymaking in Advanced Democracies: Beyond Rights Review (April 3, 2014). Administrative Law Review, Vol. 66, 2014; Yale Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 499; Yale Law & Economics Research Paper No. 497. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2419994por
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10438/19125
dc.description.abstractThe legitimacy of modern states depends on the ability of democratic institutions to reflect citizens’ preferences and values and on the state’s ability to use technical expertise competently. Legitimacy has a three-fold character based on rights, democratic responsiveness, and competence. We argue that courts can help reconcile these competing aspects of executive legitimacy. Our premise may seem implausible because courts are the archetypal 'counter-majoritarian' institution, and judges typically have little knowledge of technical subjects. However, based on a critical review of the law in the United States, Canada, Italy, and France, we argue that courts can balance respect for democratic choice and deference to experts with limited oversight that enhances legitimacy across all three dimensions. We discuss the hazards of substantive review by technically illiterate courts and argue that procedural review can be a partial substitute. If courts review rulemaking, they need to acknowledge its role in upholding policymaking values, and if they review adjudications, they need to understand that court-like procedures are inadequate to capture the broad policy issues often at stake. Based on our review of the four case studies, we conclude that to further both democracy and competence, courts: (i) should review the substance of the agencies’ decisions under a weak reasonableness test and (ii) should concentrate on the administrative process, notably by enforcing a widespread duty to give reasons and by assuring generous rights of participation.eng
dc.language.isoeng
dc.subjectComparative public laweng
dc.subjectJudicial revieweng
dc.subjectComparative administrative laweng
dc.subjectAdministrative laweng
dc.subjectPublic Administration and Policyeng
dc.subjectDeferenceeng
dc.subjectDroit Publicfra
dc.subjectDroit Comparéfra
dc.subjectDroit administratiffra
dc.subjectDroit public comparéfra
dc.subjectDiritto Amministrativoita
dc.subjectDiritto Comparatoita
dc.subjectDiritto Pubblico Comparatoita
dc.subjectDireito administrativo comparadopor
dc.subjectDireito comparadopor
dc.titleJudicial review of executive policymaking in advanced democracies: beyond rights revieweng
dc.typePapereng
dc.subject.areaDireitopor
dc.contributor.unidadefgvEscolas::DIREITO RIOpor
dc.subject.bibliodataDireito administrativopor
dc.subject.bibliodataDireito comparadopor
dc.subject.bibliodataDireito públicopor


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record