It is commonly asserted that bills of rights have had a 'righting' effect on the principles of judicial review of administrative action and have been a key driver of the modern expansion in judicial oversight of the executive arm of government. A number of commentators have pointed to Australian administrative law as evidence for this 'righting' hypothesis. They have suggested that the fact that Australia is an outlier among common law jurisdictions in having neither a statutory nor a constitutional framework to expressly protect human rights explains why Australia alone continues to take an apparently 'formalist', 'legalist' and 'conservative' approach to administrative law. Other commentators and judges, including a number in Canada, have argued the opposite: that bills of rights have the effect of stifling the development of the common law. However, for the most part, all these claims remain just that – there has been limited detailed analysis of the issue, and no detailed comparative analysis of the veracity of the claims. This book analyses in detail the interaction between administrative and human rights law in Australia and Canada, arguing that both jurisdictions have reached remarkably similar positions regarding the balance between judicial and executive power, and between broader fundamental principles including the rule of law, parliamentary sovereignty and the separation of powers. It will provide valuable reading for all those researching judicial review and human rights.

How can the power of constitutional judges to overturn parliamentary choices on the basis of their own reading of the constitution, be reconciled with fundamental democratic principles which assign the supreme role in the political system to parliaments? This time-honoured question acquired a new significance when the post-commumst countries of Central and Eastern Europe, without exception, adopted constitutional models in which constitutional courts play a very significant role, at least in theory. Can we learn something about the relationship between democracy and constitutionalism in general, from the meteoric rise of constitutional tribunals in the post-communist countries? Can the discussions and controversies relating to constitutional review which have been going on for decades in more established democracies illuminate the sources of the strength of constitutional courts in Central and Eastern Europe? These questions lie at the center of this book, which focuses on the question of constitutional review in postcommunist states, from a theoretical and comparative perspective. The chapters contained in the book outline the conceptual framework for analyzing the sources, the role and the legitimacy of constitutional justice in a system of political democracy. From this perspective, it assesses the experience of constitutional justice in the West (where the model originated) and in Central and Eastern Europe, where the model has been implanted after the fail of Communism.

This two-volume set examines the origins and growth of judicial review in the key G-20 constitutional democracies, which include the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, India, Canada, Australia, South Korea, Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia, Mexico, and the European Union, as well as Israel. The volumes consider five different theories, which help to explain the origins of judicial review, and identify which theories apply best in the various countries discussed. They consider not only what gives rise to judicial review originally, but also what causes of judicial review lead it to become more powerful and prominent over time. Volume One discusses the G-20 common law countries and Israel.

"This book examines the origins and growth of judicial review in the key G-20 constitutional democracies, which include: the United States; the United Kingdom; France; Germany; Japan; Italy; India; Canada; Australia; South Korea; Brazil; South Africa; Indonesia; Mexico; and the European Union. The book considers five different theories, which help to explain the origins of judicial review, and it identifies which theories apply best in the various countries discussed. It considers not on what gives rise to judicial review originally, but also what causes of judicial review lead it to become more powerful and prominent over times. The positive account of what causes the origins and growth of judicial review in so many very different countries over such a long period of time has normative implications"--

"Written largely by Canadian scholars for Canadian students, Human Rights: Current Issues and Controversies is an overview of contemporary human rights concerns that aims to introduce readers to the human rights instruments--provincial, national, and international--that protect Canadians. The volume begins with an overview of the history of human rights before moving on to discuss such important topics as the relationship between political institutions and rights protection, rights issues pertaining to specific communities, and cross-cutting rights issues that affect most or all citizens. Contemporary and comprehensive, Human Rights: Current Issues and Controversies is a valuable resource for undergraduate and graduate students studying human rights."--

This major collection contains selected papers from the second Public Law Conference, an international conference hosted by the University of Cambridge in September 2016. The collection includes contributions by leading academics and judges from across the common law world, including senior judges from Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK. The contributions engage with the theme of unity (and disunity) from a number of perspectives, offering a rich panoply of insights into public law which significantly carry forward public law thinking across common law jurisdictions, setting the agenda for future research and legal development. Part 1 of the volume contains chapters which offer doctrinal and theoretical perspectives. Some chapters seek to articulate a unifying framework for understanding public law, while others seek to demonstrate the plurality of public law through the method of legal taxonomy. A number of chapters analyse whether different fields such as human rights and administrative law are merging, with others considering specific unifying themes or concepts in public law. The chapters in Part 2 offer comparative perspectives, charting and analysing convergence and divergence across common law systems. Specific topics include standing, proportionality, human rights, remedies, use of foreign precedents, legal transplants, and disunity and unity among subnational jurisdictions. The collection will be of great interest to those working in public law.

As a classic text of the New Haven School of International Law, this book explores human rights and international law in the broadest sense, taking into account social sciences research while embracing all values secured, or consequently fulfilled, or needed to thus be achieved. The re-issuance of this venerable title, unveils this work to a new generation of scholars, students, and practitioners of international law and human rights.

This book explores the judiciary's role in achieving substantive equality utilising statutory discrimination law. The normative literature suggests that to eliminate discrimination, courts have to adopt a more substantive interpretation of discrimination laws, but the extent to which this has occurred is variable. The book tackles the problem by exploring the idea that there needs to be a 'creative' interpretation of discrimination law to achieve substantive results. The author asks: is a 'creative' interpretation of statutory discrimination law consistent with the institutional role of the judiciary? The author takes a comparative approach to the interpretation of non-discrimination rights by considering the interpretation of statutory discrimination law in the UK, Canada and Australia. The book explores the differences in doctrine that have developed by considering key controversies in discrimination law: Who does discrimination law protect? What is discrimination? When can discrimination be justified? The author argues that differences in the case law in each jurisdiction are explained by the way in which the appropriate role for the courts in rights review, norm elaboration and institutional competence is conceived in each studied jurisdiction. It provides valuable reading for academics, policy makers and those researching discrimination law and statutory human rights.

Mr Nikolai V. VITROUK.

Conceptual boundaries and functions of human rights