Judicial Review and the Constitution

(Hardback)

Publishing Details

Classifications

Physical Properties

Description

This 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 characterized as a central principle of administrative law or as a harmless, justificatory fiction is located in the topical and political context of constitutional change. The 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.

Reviews

In Judicial Review and the Constitution, Forsyth has gathered together the best of the previously published articles on the topic, and has commissioned new work from an impressive selection of leading public law scholars. The result is a collection that will prove of immense utility to anyone wanting an exhaustive survey of the arguments made in the debate. -- N. W. Barber * Oxford Journal of Legal Studies *
Within the public law field, this book will (deservedly) prove among the foremost influences on the next generation of legal scholarship. -- Ian Loveland, City University * Law Quarterly Review *

Author Bio

Dr Christopher Forsyth is a Fellow of Robinson College and Assistant Director of the Centre for Public Law at the University of Cambridge. is Reader in Law at University College London Dr. iur (Hamburg)