This thesis examines three interrelated issues. The first concerns a question about the status of administrative law, namely whether administrative officials have authority to determine what the law requires under a democratic constitution. Historically, this question has not been adequately addressed in public law scholarship because neither Diceyan constitutional theory nor common law doctrine has been traditionally receptive to administrative law. In this thesis, I argue that there are good reasons for people to respect the legal authority of administrative officials and their decisions. Those reasons are rooted in respect for the democratic process by which administrative officials are empowered, and respect for the various forms of expertise that administrative officials possess. The second issue concerns the doctrinal aspect of administrative law. If there are good reasons for believing that administrative officials have legitimate legal authority, then those same reasons suggest that judges should respect administrative legal decisions. In order to better understand how the relevant reasons for respecting administrative decisions alter the practice of judicial review, I compare and contrast the traditional doctrine of jurisdictional review with the doctrine of curial deference. This comparison shows that the doctrine of curial deference provides a superior account of the legitimate legal authority of administrative officials, and that this account makes a practical difference for the practice of judicial review. The third issue concerns whether the doctrine of curial deference can be reconciled with the rule of law. Assuming that there are good reasons for respecting administrative decisions, how can judges both respect an administrative decision while ensuring that it is consistent with the rule of law? I argue that judges can both respect administrative decisions and maintain the rule of law by requiring administrative officials to justify their decisions adequately in light of public reasons which are both patent and latent in existing legal materials.

This study explored the process of constitutional interpretation and constitutional review in Ethiopia and determined the role of the courts. It examined the different suggestions made by different authors and officials regarding the respective role and function of the courts and the House of Federation in interpreting the constitution and exercising the power of constitutional review. It also seeked to inquire the counter-majoritarian problem which focused on the relationship between judicial review and democracy. The thesis also inquired into the legitimacy of the Ethiopian approach to constitutional review. In this regard it seeked to determine whether the approach represents and adequate response to the counter-majoritarian problem. It also seeked to determine whether Ethiopia has adopted an institution that is well suited, competent and impartial to discharge the task of constitutional interpretation and constitutional review.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Frankfurt am Main, 1973. / Includes bibliographical references (p. [8-20]).

Thesis (M.A.)--Georgia State University, 2006. / Title from title screen. Andrew Altman, committee chair; Christie Hartley, Peter Lindsay, committee members. Electronic text (88 p.) : digital, PDF file. Description based on contents viewed May 2, 2007. Includes bibliographical references (p. 80-88).

Magister Legum - LLM / This study explored the process of constitutional interpretation and constitutional review in Ethiopia and determined the role of the courts. It examined the different suggestions made by different authors and officials regarding the respective role and function of the courts and the House of Federation in interpreting the constitution and exercising the power of constitutional review. It also seeked to inquire the counter-majoritarian problem which focused on the relationship between judicial review and democracy. The thesis also inquired into the legitimacy of the Ethiopian approach to constitutional review. In this regard it seeked to determine whether the approach represents and adequate response to the counter-majoritarian problem. It also seeked to determine whether Ethiopia has adopted an institution that is well suited, competent and impartial to discharge the task of constitutional interpretation and constitutional review. / South Africa

The topic of judicial reasoning has been largely excluded from high school law and social studies curricula despite widespread ignorance and misunderstanding among Canadians of the reasoning judges are expected to employ in applying the law. The two biggest obstacles to its inclusion are: (1) insufficient appreciation among educators of the importance of public understanding of judicial reasoning, and (2) a lack of consensus about the nature of judicial reasoning. Accordingly, the major thrusts of this dissertation are to justify why judicial reasoning ought to be part of basic civic education and to articulate a defensible conception of judicial reasoning for educators' use in law-related and public legal education programs. Defensible criteria for theorizing about judicial reasoning are explained and justified by considering different types of theorizing about social practices. Three basic types of theories are identified - formal, causal and ethical theories. It is suggested that the relevant type of theory of judicial reasoning, what I call a formal theory, involves explication of what informed practitioners would accept as the standards operating within their system. This account of theorizing about social practices is defended against objections implied by a rival account of theorizing presented by Dworkin. Dworkin's explication is rejected on the grounds that it conflates a distinction between theories that faithfully represent the standards of proper judicial practice and theories whose account of judicial standards is controlled by instrumental purposes. Building on Hart's conception of law as a union of primary and secondary rules, an account of judicial reasoning is developed in terms of three types of second-order rules. These rules of application, which establish standards for applying the law in particular cases, include rules for determining the legal validity of arguments for a decision, for setting the relative weight of legal arguments, and for verifying the conclusions attributed to a legal argument. Rules of application are organized into three dominant modes or forms of reasoning: (1) reasoning from interpretive guidelines, which refers to a constellation of second-order rules that govern application of law by determining a law's meaning; (2) reasoning from prior cases, which deals with rules governing application of law in light of previous judicial decisions; and (3) reasoning from principle, which involves rules for assessing the implications of potential judicial decisions in light of other legal standards. Specific judicial decisions and general judicial practices are explicated in terms of these modes of reasoning. This account of judicial reasoning is defended against a number of objections, including challenges posed by the principal rival conception of reasoning about the law - an account of judicial reasoning offered by Dworkin. Teaching high school students about the modes of judicial reasoning is justified because greater public understanding of judicial reasoning is required to combat widespread, potentially damaging, misperceptions of judicial practices. The key elements comprising an adequate lay understanding of judicial reasoning are outlined. / Education, Faculty of / Curriculum and Pedagogy (EDCP), Department of / Graduate

The thesis approaches the question of distributive justice through an analysis of legal rights, focusing in particular on constitutional rights. In Part I (Chapters 1, 2, 3) conceptual issues of the meaning of rights are considered. The concept of a right is analyzed generally as (1) a claim to something; (2) which is logically correlated with a duty; and (3) which is justified, in the case of constitutional rights, by reference to constitutional grounds. The more specific Hohfeldian analysis of legal rights is then coordinated with the general account. Analyzing rights as justified claims leads to the question of what counts as constitutional justification which is in turn intimately tied to a correct account of judicial review. In Part II (Chapters 4,5) a definitive account of judicial review is attempted. After examining the logical base of legal reasoning and concluding that it is essentially dialectical, the major normative theories of judicial review are considered. In particular natural law, legal realism, reasoned elaboration, and legal positivism are considered and all are rejected in part. An attempt is then made to incorporate significant elements of each in a general theory using the coherence methodology of Ronald Dworkin. Finally the results are applied to a paradigm of the sort of judicial reasoning that seems to capture the elements picked out in the earlier analysis. It is argued that the thesis advanced here explains and justifies the judicial reasoning used in that case (Griswold v. Connecticut).

O princípio democrático está inscrito nas Constituições contemporâneas como fundamental para o desenvolvimento do Estado Constitucional. Embora o conceito possa variar, é certo que existem alguns pressupostos e características que permitem avaliar o status democrático de uma sociedade, bem como a existência de efetividade aos direitos diretamente decorrentes da democracia, vale dizer, direitos voltados à instrumentação do princípio. O projeto constitucional se inscreve cotidianamente e passa a exigir o agir do Poder Público, em qualquer de suas funções, pois a efetivação da Constituição é dever de todos. Quando ausente a efetividade, passa-se a cogitar a transcrição dos direitos sobre a democracia pela veia constitucional. E ultrapassada a vertente meramente aplicadora da lei concepção liberal da separação de poderes -, o Judiciário erege como criador do Direito em um aspecto interpretacionista. Surge, então, a discussão acerca dos limites da interpretação e das técnicas de controle de constitucionalidade para efetivação da democracia. Isto é, a discussão acerca do liame que separa a interpretação criadora da criação interpretativa, assim como o modo técnico-racional utilizado pelo Judiciário para realizar o princípio democrático. De qualquer forma, torna-se imprescindível a análise circunstanciada do modo de interpretação, até mesmo para que nunca se perca de vista o dever de racionalidade que deve permear a decisão jurisdicional. O objetivo não é negar o evidente processo criativo do Judiciário, mas entender seu funcionamento, de modo que seu exercício não exceda a interpretação razoável dos preceitos constitucionais. / The democratic principle is present in the contemporary Constitutions as the central for the development of the constitutional State. Although the concept may vary, there are some assumptions and characteristics that allow the evaluation of a society´s democratic status, as well as the existence of effective directly democratic rights. In other words, rights capable of exercising the principle. The constitutional project is performed daily and it requires the action of government, in all of its functions, since the execution of the Constitution is an obligation of all. When the effectiveness is left beside, its common to cogitate the transcription of rights about democracy in the Constitution. And once the thought of the Judiciary only as a law enforcer liberal conception of the separation of powers is overcame, the Judiciary assumes a role of rights creator in an interpretationist aspect. That´s when the discussion about the limits of interpretation and judicial review techniques in the effectiviness of democracy comes to surface. In other words, the discussion that envolves the bond that separates creative interpretation from interpretative creation, as the technical-rational mode used by the Judiciary to accomplish the democractic principle. Either way, it becomes essential the detailed analysis of the form of interpretation adopted, as a way to never left aside the rationaily duty that should permeate judicial decision. The goal is not to deny the obvious creative process of Judiciary, but to understand its function so its exercise never exceeds the reasonable interpretation of fundamental precepts.

O princípio democrático está inscrito nas Constituições contemporâneas como fundamental para o desenvolvimento do Estado Constitucional. Embora o conceito possa variar, é certo que existem alguns pressupostos e características que permitem avaliar o status democrático de uma sociedade, bem como a existência de efetividade aos direitos diretamente decorrentes da democracia, vale dizer, direitos voltados à instrumentação do princípio. O projeto constitucional se inscreve cotidianamente e passa a exigir o agir do Poder Público, em qualquer de suas funções, pois a efetivação da Constituição é dever de todos. Quando ausente a efetividade, passa-se a cogitar a transcrição dos direitos sobre a democracia pela veia constitucional. E ultrapassada a vertente meramente aplicadora da lei concepção liberal da separação de poderes -, o Judiciário erege como criador do Direito em um aspecto interpretacionista. Surge, então, a discussão acerca dos limites da interpretação e das técnicas de controle de constitucionalidade para efetivação da democracia. Isto é, a discussão acerca do liame que separa a interpretação criadora da criação interpretativa, assim como o modo técnico-racional utilizado pelo Judiciário para realizar o princípio democrático. De qualquer forma, torna-se imprescindível a análise circunstanciada do modo de interpretação, até mesmo para que nunca se perca de vista o dever de racionalidade que deve permear a decisão jurisdicional. O objetivo não é negar o evidente processo criativo do Judiciário, mas entender seu funcionamento, de modo que seu exercício não exceda a interpretação razoável dos preceitos constitucionais. / The democratic principle is present in the contemporary Constitutions as the central for the development of the constitutional State. Although the concept may vary, there are some assumptions and characteristics that allow the evaluation of a society´s democratic status, as well as the existence of effective directly democratic rights. In other words, rights capable of exercising the principle. The constitutional project is performed daily and it requires the action of government, in all of its functions, since the execution of the Constitution is an obligation of all. When the effectiveness is left beside, its common to cogitate the transcription of rights about democracy in the Constitution. And once the thought of the Judiciary only as a law enforcer liberal conception of the separation of powers is overcame, the Judiciary assumes a role of rights creator in an interpretationist aspect. That´s when the discussion about the limits of interpretation and judicial review techniques in the effectiviness of democracy comes to surface. In other words, the discussion that envolves the bond that separates creative interpretation from interpretative creation, as the technical-rational mode used by the Judiciary to accomplish the democractic principle. Either way, it becomes essential the detailed analysis of the form of interpretation adopted, as a way to never left aside the rationaily duty that should permeate judicial decision. The goal is not to deny the obvious creative process of Judiciary, but to understand its function so its exercise never exceeds the reasonable interpretation of fundamental precepts.

The thesis examines the constitutional position of the Court of Session's supervisory jurisdiction. It begins by emphasising the methodological and substantive importance of the historicality and traditionality of law. It then provides a detailed historical account of the emergence of the Court's supervisory jurisdiction, from its inheritance of supervisory functions from emanations of the King's Council to the present-day law of judicial review. Throughout, emphasis is placed on the Court's strong sense of self-orientation in the wider legal and constitutional order, and the extent to which it defined its own supervisory jurisdiction. The court was a powerful constitutional actor and played a strong role in the increasing centralisation and systematisation of the legal order, expanding its supervisory purview through a powerful triumvirate of remedies (advocation, suspension and reduction) and a comprehensive approach to the supervision of a wide range of bodies. The thesis then frames tensions between Parliament and the Court in the context of judicial review of ouster clauses, chosen as a point of heightened inter-institutional tension. This is demonstrated to be an area in which divergent visions of the constitution are evident – Parliament regarding itself as entitled to oust the jurisdiction of the Court to judicially review, and the Court regarding itself as entitled to examine and pronounce on the extent of ouster, including its limitation or exclusion. In attempting to conciliate these divergent constitutional worldviews, the thesis rejects a “last word” approach which prevails in the English judicial review literature. It considers (and rejects), as alternatives, dialogue theories and functional departmentalism. The thesis then advances constitutional narratology as its preferred analytical framework for the accommodation of those inter-institutional tensions, and conciliation of their divergent worldviews. The Court's performance of a constitutional-narratological function facilitates the integration, conciliation and synthesis of legal norms with an existing law and legal system; weaves and coagulates multifarious legal norms into a unified and univocal body of norms; and executes a chronicling, expository and explanatory storytelling function which sets a legally-authoritative narrative to the law. In doing so, the Court performs a distinctive and indispensable constitutional function incapable of fulfilment by Parliament. It is argued that traditionality and functional necessity provide the legal-systemic legitimation for the Court's performance of the constitutional-narratological function. Finally, the thesis considers the institutional specificity of the function, concluding that it is the function, rather than the institution, that is indispensable. However, neither the advent of the Upper Tribunal nor the U.K. Supreme Court suggest at this stage that the Court's performance of that function is waning.