The role of courts in administrative procedure : two studies contrasting Great Britain and the United States

This thesis focuses on the creative role of the judiciary in two areas of administrative procedure. More particularly, it compares the responses of British and American courts to two discrete problems. The first, the subject of Part One, is that of prescribing minimum procedures for decisions involving the planning or regulation of a scheme - called "policy" decisions in Britain and "polycentric" decisions in America. The second, treated in Part Two, which is much shorter, concerns the enforcement of procedures that have already been prescribed by the administration for itself. The overall approach in each part is similar. Introductory chapters (Chapter 1 and Chapter 9) present each problem in general terms and analyze the values that judges must keep in mind. The ensuing chapters in each part treat the British and American experiences in turn. They examine what the courts have done, how they have approached the problem, and how they have interacted with other bodies concerned with administrative procedure. From this it is possible to project a future role for the courts. Part One, covering the judicial creation of procedures for "policy" or "polycentric" decisions, is by far the greater in scope and length. Chapter 1 begins by explaining that a "policy" or "polycentric" decision involves the planning or regulation of a distinct scheme - for example, a network of roads, a system of land use restrictions, or a pattern of airline licences. After briefly discussing British and American perceptions of these decisions, the chapter focuses on what will be the chief concern of judges in each country - the participation to be afforded citizens. Depending on the scope of the matter and the precise issues, the proper format may be trial, oral argument, a conference, or written comments, singly or in combination. The courts ensure adequate participation by prescribing minimum procedures, through natural justice in Britain and constitutional due process in America. [Please see thesis for the complete the abstract.

The role of courts in administrative procedure : two studies contrasting Great Britain and the United States

This thesis focuses on the creative role of the judiciary in two areas of administrative procedure. More particularly, it compares the responses of British and American courts to two discrete problems. The first, the subject of Part One, is that of prescribing minimum procedures for decisions involving the planning or regulation of a scheme - called "policy" decisions in Britain and "polycentric" decisions in America. The second, treated in Part Two, which is much shorter, concerns the enforcement of procedures that have already been prescribed by the administration for itself. The overall approach in each part is similar. Introductory chapters (Chapter 1 and Chapter 9) present each problem in general terms and analyze the values that judges must keep in mind. The ensuing chapters in each part treat the British and American experiences in turn. They examine what the courts have done, how they have approached the problem, and how they have interacted with other bodies concerned with administrative procedure. From this it is possible to project a future role for the courts. Part One, covering the judicial creation of procedures for "policy" or "polycentric" decisions, is by far the greater in scope and length. Chapter 1 begins by explaining that a "policy" or "polycentric" decision involves the planning or regulation of a distinct scheme - for example, a network of roads, a system of land use restrictions, or a pattern of airline licences. After briefly discussing British and American perceptions of these decisions, the chapter focuses on what will be the chief concern of judges in each country - the participation to be afforded citizens. Depending on the scope of the matter and the precise issues, the proper format may be trial, oral argument, a conference, or written comments, singly or in combination. The courts ensure adequate participation by prescribing minimum procedures, through natural justice in Britain and constitutional due process in America. [Please see thesis for the complete the abstract.]</p