Just Words? Judicial Reasons as Remedy in Administrative Law

This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of Russian administrative litigation, incorporating legislation, case law, and academic scholarship, in order to introduce the system and structure of administrative litigation in the Russian Federation. Indeed, the structure of legal relationships in Russian administrative law is completely different from that in South Korea's administrative law, so there are many aspects that can be compared between Russian administrative litigation law and South Korea's administrative litigation law. Moreover, since administrative litigation law in all countries is based on administrative law, the administrative litigation law in the Russian Federation introduced in this paper can also be compared with South Korea's administrative litigation law.
 Currently, the Russian administrative litigation system consists of administrative proceedings and administrative lawsuits. The administrative proceedings system has evolved based on the administrative proceedings system in the Soviet Union, while the administrative lawsuits system has been established in a completely different form from the administrative lawsuits system in the Soviet era. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian administrative litigation system treated administrative lawsuits as a special type of civil or commercial litigation, while categorizing administrative proceedings as a separate remedy under administrative law. However, with the enactment and implementation of the Administrative Lawsuit Law in 2015, administrative lawsuits were separated from civil and commercial lawsuits and established as an independent litigation system, establishing its own type of lawsuit, alongside the types of lawsuits enumerated in the Russian Constitution (constitutional lawsuits, civil lawsuits, criminal lawsuits, commercial lawsuits, and administrative lawsuits).
 Administrative litigation in the Russian Federation refers to the administrative remedy under administrative law, which is carried out by the administrative adjudication committee established by law for administrative agencies or individual administrative systems. One characteristic of Russian administrative litigation is that the appellate body that can cancel or invalidate administrative decisions is the administrative adjudication committee of the superior agency or individual administrative system established by law, and the administrative agency cannot review its own administrative decision. In the case of administrative litigation, it is a full trial based on a lawsuit by the parties involved. The type of administrative litigation is distinguished based on whether the dispute has economic value and whether the administrative action is illegal. In the former case, it is classified into general administrative litigation and administrative commercial litigation, based on the existence of economic value in the administrative dispute. In the latter case, it is classified as administrative violation litigation based on whether there is illegality in the administrative action that imposes legal sanctions for the administrative punishment of illegal administrative acts by administrative authorities. Therefore, the types of administrative litigation in the Russian Federation are composed of 1) general administrative litigation for disputes between administrative entities regarding rights and obligations under administrative law, 2) administrative commercial litigation for disputes regarding economic rights and obligations under administrative law, and 3) administrative violation litigation for administrative punishment of illegal administrative acts by administrative authorities as a lawsuit material.
 The characteristics of Russia's administrative litigation system are as follows. First, in administrative adjudication, administrative agencies are bound by their own administrative decisions and cannot review them on their own.

Federal Administration and Administrative Law in the Gilded Age

Modern judicial review in Australia has been characterised by a significant increase in the judiciary’s willingness to constrain the actions of both the executive and the legislature. How has this increase in judicial power come about? This paper argues that it is the result of an underlying shift in the role that the judiciary sees for itself.This article is divided into three main parts. First, there will be an examination of what a culture of justification entails. Particular attention will be paid to its democratic foundations and practical and theoretical origins in South Africa. Second, developments in Australia will be examined, supporting the proposition that there has been a substantial shift in power to the judiciary consistent with it taking on the role envisaged for it by a culture of justification. Third, it is concluded that an understanding of the shift that has taken place and its limitations is useful, but that administrative law (including judicial review) is shaped by many competing demands. Therefore any shift will be far from linear. Consequently, rather than a shift toward a culture of justification which is suggestive of an all-pervasive change, it is more helpful to talk of an evolution in which the judiciary is seeking to impose a justificatory account of the rule of law.

Administrative decisions in Afghanistan are currently made without the support of written administrative laws or effective mechanisms for judicial oversight due to the national unstable situation from war. This article which is titled “Judicial Oversight on Administrative Decisions in Afghanistan” aims to investigate this issue and propose a dedicated mechanism for judicial oversight. This qualitative research was performed to answer a research question on administrative decisions and its judicial oversight. Desk review method was used, and interviews were conducted with academics in Administrative law. This article also explains the judicial oversight applied by other countries. The findings reveal that Afghanistan lacks an adequate mechanism for judicial oversight of administrative decisions, ruling out the feasibility of adopting models such as the administrative court system seen in France. Afghanistan needs to undergo significant reforms within the judicial system to effectively resolve administrative disputes. A crucial step is the urgent enactment of an Administrative Procedure Law tailored for the administrative court, aimed at streamlining investigation procedures, reducing court expenses, and improving citizen access to justice, thereby strengthening the rule of law in Afghanistan.

This article assesses where the Supreme Court stands on administrative law after the 2018 term, focusing on Kisor v. Wilkie and Department of Commerce v. New York. Over the last decade, the Roberts Court had demonstrated increasing concerns about an out-of-control federal bureaucracy at odds with the constitutional order, but hadn’t pulled back significantly on administrative governance in practice. The 2018 term provided the Court with a chance to put its might where its mouth was. Yet administrative law’s denouement did not come; established administrative law doctrines remain in force, albeit narrowed. The 2018 Term cases demonstrate that the Roberts Court is deeply divided on administrative law along clear ideological lines. The cases also illuminate several core analytic themes and tensions in the Roberts Court’s administrative law jurisprudence, in particular disagreements over: the relationship of law and policy; formalism and nonformalism; the role of history; and administrative common law versus Administrative Procedure Act originalism. Taking a further step back, two contrasting frames emerge from the Roberts Court’s 2018 term administrative law opinions. One is radical, with a categorical and uncompromising formalism, commitment to limited government and aggressive judicial review, insistently originalist stance, and rejection of contemporary judicial review doctrines as at odds with traditional understandings of judicial power and the meaning of the APA. The other is incrementalist and common law in character, encompassing justices with a broader range of views about constitutional structure and administrative government but united in their unwillingness to disrupt existing governance regimes, at least not all at once. Which of these analytic frames will ultimately prevail still remains an open question, but incrementalism was plainly the victor in the 2018 Term’s administrative law decisions. That is significant, but should also not obscure that there was unity across the Court in urging greater judicial scrutiny of administrative action. Moreover, despite invocations of the importance of bureaucratic expertise, these decisions share the concerns with unaccountable, aggrandized, and arbitrary administrative power that characterize the Roberts Court’s administrative jurisprudence more widely. Notably lacking is reference to the ways that the administrative state operates to constrain power, render it accountable, and advance individual liberty. Absent a more balanced view of the administrative state, the Roberts Court is unlikely to develop a coherent approach to administrative law.

In this article, I argue that the right to dignity is more at home in administrative law than anywhere else. This argument goes against the grain of much constitutional scholarship and jurisprudence, where there is increasing interest in dignity as the foundational value, and of recent work in political philosophy that invokes dignity as the right of rights—the right that grounds all others. I defend the view that we should resist the temptation to make dignity the right of rights. Rather, we should see it as the way of understanding our relationship as rights-bearing individuals with the state. Put differently, the right to dignity is nothing more than the principle that individuals must be treated as equal before the law. Understood as such, dignity has a venerable presence in theories of constitutionalism. Dignity is not merely a synonym for equality, but also a useful, perhaps even an essential, way of making precise the right to equality before the law that is intrinsic to government according to law. My defence takes place in two contexts: the “wicked” legal system of apartheid South Africa and the “decent” legal system of contemporary Canada. These two contexts show in different ways why there is a core of equality—the specifically legal status of equal dignity—to the public law order of any law-governed state

Objectives: This study explores the transformation of public administration and administrative law from an institutional logic to an organizational logic in response to globalization and the diffusion of liberal economic values. It aims to analyze how this shift, driven by New Public Management (NPM), has affected traditional administrative law frameworks, particularly in countries with specific administrative legal systems and jurisdictions. Methods: A conceptual and comparative approach was employed to examine the evolving relationship between administrative law and public administration. Relevant literature and legal frameworks were reviewed to assess how managerial principles have influenced administrative reforms and reshaped the roles of legality, public-private boundaries, and judicial oversight. Results: The findings reveal that the traditional application of administrative law—rooted in the principle of legality—has increasingly been adapted or replaced by managerial models emphasizing flexibility, efficiency, and profitability. Many countries have restructured their public sectors according to NPM principles, resulting in significant changes to public management practices and judicial control mechanisms within administrative jurisdictions. Conclusions: Administrative law now faces the challenge of reconciling managerial rationality with foundational legal principles. The shift from institutional to organizational logic has significant implications for governance, especially in legal systems that maintain distinct administrative courts and laws. Effective integration of these managerial models requires a careful balance to preserve public interest and legal accountability.

Government Accountability Sources and Materials: Australian Administrative Law is designed to accompany the third edition of the textbook Government Accountability: Australian Administrative Law. Following the accessible structure of Government Accountability, this book guides students through the real-world operation of administrative law and demonstrates how multiple doctrines and mechanisms can interact in a single situation. Extracts from primary materials – including cases and legislation – provide a clear account of the facts, issues and statutory provisions considered by the courts, and are accompanied by relevant commentary. This edition has been thoroughly updated to include recent significant cases such as Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Viane (2021), Hocking v Director-General of the National Archives of Australia (2020) and MZAPC v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2021). Written by a team of experts, Government Accountability Sources and Materials: Australian Administrative Law is a fundamental and student-friendly introduction to administrative law in practice.

Government Accountability Sources and Materials: Australian Administrative Law is designed to accompany the third edition of the textbook Government Accountability: Australian Administrative Law. Following the accessible structure of Government Accountability, this book guides students through the real-world operation of administrative law and demonstrates how multiple doctrines and mechanisms can interact in a single situation. Extracts from primary materials – including cases and legislation – provide a clear account of the facts, issues and statutory provisions considered by the courts, and are accompanied by relevant commentary. This edition has been thoroughly updated to include recent significant cases such as Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Viane (2021), Hocking v Director-General of the National Archives of Australia (2020) and MZAPC v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2021). Written by a team of experts, Government Accountability Sources and Materials: Australian Administrative Law is a fundamental and student-friendly introduction to administrative law in practice.

Government Accountability Sources and Materials: Australian Administrative Law is designed to accompany the third edition of the textbook Government Accountability: Australian Administrative Law. Following the accessible structure of Government Accountability, this book guides students through the real-world operation of administrative law and demonstrates how multiple doctrines and mechanisms can interact in a single situation. Extracts from primary materials – including cases and legislation – provide a clear account of the facts, issues and statutory provisions considered by the courts, and are accompanied by relevant commentary. This edition has been thoroughly updated to include recent significant cases such as Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Viane (2021), Hocking v Director-General of the National Archives of Australia (2020) and MZAPC v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2021). Written by a team of experts, Government Accountability Sources and Materials: Australian Administrative Law is a fundamental and student-friendly introduction to administrative law in practice.

Government Accountability Sources and Materials: Australian Administrative Law is designed to accompany the third edition of the textbook Government Accountability: Australian Administrative Law. Following the accessible structure of Government Accountability, this book guides students through the real-world operation of administrative law and demonstrates how multiple doctrines and mechanisms can interact in a single situation. Extracts from primary materials – including cases and legislation – provide a clear account of the facts, issues and statutory provisions considered by the courts, and are accompanied by relevant commentary. This edition has been thoroughly updated to include recent significant cases such as Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Viane (2021), Hocking v Director-General of the National Archives of Australia (2020) and MZAPC v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2021). Written by a team of experts, Government Accountability Sources and Materials: Australian Administrative Law is a fundamental and student-friendly introduction to administrative law in practice.

Government Accountability Sources and Materials: Australian Administrative Law is designed to accompany the third edition of the textbook Government Accountability: Australian Administrative Law. Following the accessible structure of Government Accountability, this book guides students through the real-world operation of administrative law and demonstrates how multiple doctrines and mechanisms can interact in a single situation. Extracts from primary materials – including cases and legislation – provide a clear account of the facts, issues and statutory provisions considered by the courts, and are accompanied by relevant commentary. This edition has been thoroughly updated to include recent significant cases such as Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Viane (2021), Hocking v Director-General of the National Archives of Australia (2020) and MZAPC v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2021). Written by a team of experts, Government Accountability Sources and Materials: Australian Administrative Law is a fundamental and student-friendly introduction to administrative law in practice.

Government Accountability Sources and Materials: Australian Administrative Law is designed to accompany the third edition of the textbook Government Accountability: Australian Administrative Law. Following the accessible structure of Government Accountability, this book guides students through the real-world operation of administrative law and demonstrates how multiple doctrines and mechanisms can interact in a single situation. Extracts from primary materials – including cases and legislation – provide a clear account of the facts, issues and statutory provisions considered by the courts, and are accompanied by relevant commentary. This edition has been thoroughly updated to include recent significant cases such as Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Viane (2021), Hocking v Director-General of the National Archives of Australia (2020) and MZAPC v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2021). Written by a team of experts, Government Accountability Sources and Materials: Australian Administrative Law is a fundamental and student-friendly introduction to administrative law in practice.

Government Accountability Sources and Materials: Australian Administrative Law is designed to accompany the third edition of the textbook Government Accountability: Australian Administrative Law. Following the accessible structure of Government Accountability, this book guides students through the real-world operation of administrative law and demonstrates how multiple doctrines and mechanisms can interact in a single situation. Extracts from primary materials – including cases and legislation – provide a clear account of the facts, issues and statutory provisions considered by the courts, and are accompanied by relevant commentary. This edition has been thoroughly updated to include recent significant cases such as Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Viane (2021), Hocking v Director-General of the National Archives of Australia (2020) and MZAPC v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2021). Written by a team of experts, Government Accountability Sources and Materials: Australian Administrative Law is a fundamental and student-friendly introduction to administrative law in practice.

Government Accountability Sources and Materials: Australian Administrative Law is designed to accompany the third edition of the textbook Government Accountability: Australian Administrative Law. Following the accessible structure of Government Accountability, this book guides students through the real-world operation of administrative law and demonstrates how multiple doctrines and mechanisms can interact in a single situation. Extracts from primary materials – including cases and legislation – provide a clear account of the facts, issues and statutory provisions considered by the courts, and are accompanied by relevant commentary. This edition has been thoroughly updated to include recent significant cases such as Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Viane (2021), Hocking v Director-General of the National Archives of Australia (2020) and MZAPC v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2021). Written by a team of experts, Government Accountability Sources and Materials: Australian Administrative Law is a fundamental and student-friendly introduction to administrative law in practice.