1 / 8

Against Public Interest Standing in Administrative Law:

Against Public Interest Standing in Administrative Law:. exploring a non-individualist constitutional argument Hanna Wilberg University of Auckland h.wilberg@auckland.ac.nz. What this is & is not about: Q: is public interest standing compatible with proper constitutional role of courts?.

velika
Download Presentation

Against Public Interest Standing in Administrative Law:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Against Public Interest Standing in Administrative Law: exploring a non-individualist constitutional argument Hanna Wilberg University of Auckland h.wilberg@auckland.ac.nz

  2. What this is & is not about:Q: is public interest standing compatible with proper constitutional role of courts? • public law - not company or charities law; torts • administrative law - not constitutional • public interest standing (eg Curtis) - not associational, surrogate (eg Ruddock v Vadarlis) • constitutional issue - not more pragmatic issues, such as impact on 3rd parties • general constitutional principle - not specific provisions of Australian Constitution • exploring positions - not answering the question

  3. Against Public Interest Standing in Administrative Law: exploring a non-individualist constitutional argument

  4. Is public interest standing compatible with courts’ constitutional role? Exploring available positions: I. Mainstream positions for & against II. Alternative position against III. Alternative position favouring limited public interest standing

  5. Is public interest standing compatible with courts’ constitutional role? I.Mainstream positions: • Yes: courts must uphold rule of law (eg Federation of Self-employed) => law understood as autonomous, distinct from politics (eg WDM) • No: separation of powers limits courts to protecting individuals (eg Scalia J) => classical liberalism: individualist

  6. Is public interest standing compatible with courts’ constitutional role? II. Alternative position against:political constitutionalism • in general (Griffith, Tomkins): • politics accommodates collective conflicts • law is a creature of politics; adjudication is politics carried on by other means • responsible govt as centrepiece of constitution => collectivist & “green light” • can be applied to oppose public interest standing => individual restriction only by derivation

  7. Is public interest standing compatible with courts’ constitutional role? III. Alternative position favouring limited public interest standing: pluralism • represent regulatory “beneficiaries” (eg Scenic Hudson) • counter-balance pressure of potential challenges from individual “objects” (Stewart) => does this fit in with political constitutionalist position?

  8. Is public interest standing compatible with courts’ constitutional role? Conclusion: • A negative answer could be based on the non-individualist position of political constitutionalism. • This may be compatible with an exception in favour of “beneficiary” standing where there are individual “objects”.

More Related