Global ETD Search

21	Inconsistencies in the rights of review of the merits of Commonwealth administrative decisions Thackeray, Vincent Gregory Unknown Date (has links) Government intervention in the financial and social affairs of citizens has increased dramatically in the last fifty years. As a result, government administrative decisions continually affect the everyday lives of people. Many of these decisions are discretionary. Modern administrative law has grown to meet the need for governments, rather than the courts, to supervise the exercise of administrative power so that injustice resulting from misuse of power can be avoided. The merits review system is an integral part of this administrative law. The effectiveness of the merits review system is dependent upon how Parliament makes provision for merits review in the legislative process. The object of this thesis is to analyse and evaluate the effectiveness of the scope of the Commonwealth administrative law merits review system. An evaluation of the availability of rights of review of the merits of Commonwealth administrative decisions will determine the extent to which Commonwealth law provides for merits review of administrative decisions. This thesis makes such an evaluation by undertaking an empirical study of the merits review provisions in Commonwealth legislation. The empirical study analyses 1,070 Commonwealth statutes and establishes that there are 340 statutes that confer power to make a reviewable decision or decisions. However, only 30 percent of these statutes provide for merits review of all reviewable decisions, while 44 percent provide for merits review of some decisions and 26 percent do not provide for merits review of any decisions. Consequently, the empirical study identifies inconsistencies in the provision of merits review of Commonwealth administrative decisions. The Australian parliamentary executive system of government has permitted a breakdown in the legislative drafting process that has allowed these inconsistencies to develop. Moreover, the executive arm of the Commonwealth government has diminished its accountability to Parliament for some of the administrative decisions made by it. A person affected by an unreviewable administrative decision may be treated unjustly as a result. 350200 Business and Management Inconsistencies rights merits review Commonwealth Australia administrative decisions Kerr Executive unaccountable Parliament injustice empirical study statutes legislation. breakdown legislative drafting process Parliamentary Counsel Administrative Review Tribunal Council Attorney-General appeal
22	Inconsistencies in the rights of review of the merits of Commonwealth administrative decisions Thackeray, Vincent Gregory Unknown Date (has links) Government intervention in the financial and social affairs of citizens has increased dramatically in the last fifty years. As a result, government administrative decisions continually affect the everyday lives of people. Many of these decisions are discretionary. Modern administrative law has grown to meet the need for governments, rather than the courts, to supervise the exercise of administrative power so that injustice resulting from misuse of power can be avoided. The merits review system is an integral part of this administrative law. The effectiveness of the merits review system is dependent upon how Parliament makes provision for merits review in the legislative process. The object of this thesis is to analyse and evaluate the effectiveness of the scope of the Commonwealth administrative law merits review system. An evaluation of the availability of rights of review of the merits of Commonwealth administrative decisions will determine the extent to which Commonwealth law provides for merits review of administrative decisions. This thesis makes such an evaluation by undertaking an empirical study of the merits review provisions in Commonwealth legislation. The empirical study analyses 1,070 Commonwealth statutes and establishes that there are 340 statutes that confer power to make a reviewable decision or decisions. However, only 30 percent of these statutes provide for merits review of all reviewable decisions, while 44 percent provide for merits review of some decisions and 26 percent do not provide for merits review of any decisions. Consequently, the empirical study identifies inconsistencies in the provision of merits review of Commonwealth administrative decisions. The Australian parliamentary executive system of government has permitted a breakdown in the legislative drafting process that has allowed these inconsistencies to develop. Moreover, the executive arm of the Commonwealth government has diminished its accountability to Parliament for some of the administrative decisions made by it. A person affected by an unreviewable administrative decision may be treated unjustly as a result. 350200 Business and Management Inconsistencies rights merits review Commonwealth Australia administrative decisions Kerr Executive unaccountable Parliament injustice empirical study statutes legislation. breakdown legislative drafting process Parliamentary Counsel Administrative Review Tribunal Council Attorney-General appeal
23	Inconsistencies in the rights of review of the merits of Commonwealth administrative decisions Thackeray, Vincent Gregory Unknown Date (has links) Government intervention in the financial and social affairs of citizens has increased dramatically in the last fifty years. As a result, government administrative decisions continually affect the everyday lives of people. Many of these decisions are discretionary. Modern administrative law has grown to meet the need for governments, rather than the courts, to supervise the exercise of administrative power so that injustice resulting from misuse of power can be avoided. The merits review system is an integral part of this administrative law. The effectiveness of the merits review system is dependent upon how Parliament makes provision for merits review in the legislative process. The object of this thesis is to analyse and evaluate the effectiveness of the scope of the Commonwealth administrative law merits review system. An evaluation of the availability of rights of review of the merits of Commonwealth administrative decisions will determine the extent to which Commonwealth law provides for merits review of administrative decisions. This thesis makes such an evaluation by undertaking an empirical study of the merits review provisions in Commonwealth legislation. The empirical study analyses 1,070 Commonwealth statutes and establishes that there are 340 statutes that confer power to make a reviewable decision or decisions. However, only 30 percent of these statutes provide for merits review of all reviewable decisions, while 44 percent provide for merits review of some decisions and 26 percent do not provide for merits review of any decisions. Consequently, the empirical study identifies inconsistencies in the provision of merits review of Commonwealth administrative decisions. The Australian parliamentary executive system of government has permitted a breakdown in the legislative drafting process that has allowed these inconsistencies to develop. Moreover, the executive arm of the Commonwealth government has diminished its accountability to Parliament for some of the administrative decisions made by it. A person affected by an unreviewable administrative decision may be treated unjustly as a result. 350200 Business and Management Inconsistencies rights merits review Commonwealth Australia administrative decisions Kerr Executive unaccountable Parliament injustice empirical study statutes legislation. breakdown legislative drafting process Parliamentary Counsel Administrative Review Tribunal Council Attorney-General appeal
24	Fundamentos y límites de la analogía in bonam partem en el derecho penal Montiel Fernández, Juan Pablo 20 September 2008 (has links) Una adecuada interpretación del principio de legalidad ofrece buenas razones para admitir la analogía in bonam partem en el Derecho penal aunque de un modo limitado. Incluso cuando el juez mediante ésta excluye o limita el ejercicio del ius puniendi, el aplicador del Derecho penal debe seguir apegado a la ley. De este modo, la analogía in bonam partem debe ser vista como un mecanismo excepcional de integración del Derecho penal frente a inconsistencias axiológicas no previstas ni deseadas por el legislador. Estas excepcionales facultades creadoras reconocidas al juez tienen lugar frente a concretas instituciones jurídico-penales y dentro de un determinado marco argumentativo. En este sentido, la analogía in bonam partem es un medio para crear supralegalmente causas de justificación, causas de exculpación y atenuantes, mientras que no para crear excusas absolutorias. Igualmente, el juez puede crear Derecho solamente a partir de la analogía legis o la analogía institutionis, sin resultar posible acudir a la analogía iuris. / An adequate interpretation of the legality principle offers sound reasons to accept analogy in bonam partem in Criminal Law, though only in a limited way. Even when the judge excludes or limits the ius puniendi through the use of analogy, she should still be strictly subjected to the norm. Therefore the analogy in bonam partem must be seen as an exceptional mechanism of Criminal Law's Integration in the presence of axiological inconsistencies that the Parliament didn't foresee and didn't want. These exceptional law-making powers awarded to the judge refer to specific Criminal law institutions and in a specific argumentative framework. In this sense, analogy in bonam partem is an instrument to supra-legally create justifications, excuses, and mitigating circumstances, but not other types of punishment excluding institutions. In the same manner, the judge can create new Criminal Law only through legis Analogy and institutionis Analogy but not through iuris Analogy. Institutional and Law Analogy Legal axiological Inconsistencies axiological Gaps Law Principles possible Judicial Law Creation Criminal Law purposes Criminal Law Interpretation Criminal Law Integration Legality Principle atenuante analógica Analogy interdiction institutionis e iuris analogía legis inconsistencias axiológicas lagunas axiológicas creación judicial de Derecho interpretaciones posibles óptimas y arbitrarias o absurdas principios jurídicos integración del Derecho penal interpretación del Derecho penal fines del Derecho penal prohibición de analogía principio de legalidad analogical Mitigation 343

Page generated in 0.0989 seconds