Abstract
This article seeks to explain how judicial review of administrative action can have a negative impact in the application of the law itself as well as in its capacity to limit the discretion of public authorities. This transpires when courts adjudicate cases ignoring the demands of the rule of law, which represent a standard of action for any court. Two basic demands of the rule of law are distinguished here and both are at stake when courts review decisions made by public authorities. The article also explains how the jurisdictional control can satisfy one of those demands and at the same time compromising the capacity of the law for satisfying the other. The authors illustrate their point by analyzing a relatively recent judgment from the Chilean Supreme Court concerning a “writ of protection” that challenged the decision of the CEA of Atacama which approved the Study of Environmental Impact of the mining project El Morro.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
