The text examines Justo Arosemena’s contribution to the nineteenth-century Latin American debate on constitutional review. It explores the tension in his thought between skepticism toward New Granada’s Supreme Court and his critical engagement with U.S.-style judicial review, particularly regarding the limits imposed by the case-or-controversy rule and political-question doctrine. Arosemena advocates broader standing and a centralized abstract action against unconstitutional laws, anticipating mixed models of constitutional review.

Constitutional documents include limitations on their amendment, established by the original constituent authority. These limitations are divided into procedural limitations, substantive limitations, and temporal limitations. Accordingly, this research raises an important question: what if the authority empowered to amend the constitution violates the limitations imposed upon its power in the constitutional document? In such a case, may constitutional amendments be subject to judicial review? This study seeks to answer this question by setting out the positions of comparative constitutional courts in a number of states regarding the review of constitutional amendments. It also examines constitutions that contain explicit provisions stipulating that constitutional amendments are subject to judicial review. This subject has been addressed through three principal axes: first, the legal basis of judicial review of constitutional amendments; secondly, the justifications supporting judicial review of constitutional amendments; and thirdly, the approaches of comparative constitutional courts regarding the review of constitutional amendments. This is undertaken within an integrated framework combining the analytical, inductive, descriptive, and comparative research methodologies. The study concludes that, in light of the limited number of constitutions that adopt the principle of judicial review of the constitutionality of constitutional amendments, the principal recommendation lies in the necessity of constitutional entrenchment of this principle, particularly in view of the inclusion within constitutional documents of constraints upon the amending power. Violation of these constraints constitutes a deviation of power that necessitates the imposition of a sanction.

The article examines problematic aspects of the regulatory and legal regulation of the mechanism for appealing procedural decisions, actions, or inaction of pre-trial investigation entities during preparatory court proceedings. It is argued that the institution of appeal is an important component of the realization of a person’s right to an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as it provides for the possibility of judicial review of the legality and validity of the procedural activities of subjects of criminal proceedings. It is noted that despite the regulation of the possibility of court consideration of complaints against other decisions, actions, or inaction of an investigator, inquiry officer, or prosecutor during preparatory court proceedings that were not subject to consideration at the pre-trial investigation stage, the current criminal procedural legislation does not contain a clearly defined procedural mechanism for the implementation of such a right. It is noted that the absence in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine of provisions on the grounds, conditions, time limits, and procedure for considering relevant complaints in preparatory proceedings indicates a violation of the requirement of legal certainty as an integral part of the principle of the rule of law. It is noted that the defectiveness of legislative norms leads to legal uncertainty, a formal approach, and restrictions on a person’s access to judicial protection of violated rights. It has been proven that the deferred nature of the court’s consideration of complaints in preparatory proceedings reduces the effectiveness of judicial protection, since the response to significant violations of rights, freedoms, and legitimate interests occurs after the completion of the pre-trial investigation, when their negative consequences become irreversible. It is noted that some cases from judicial practice indicate the impossibility of appealing due to the lack of an appropriate procedure, which effectively nullifies the guaranteed right to file a complaint during a preparatory hearing in court. It was analyzed that the absence of mandatory rules regarding the mandatory consideration of complaints by the court in preparatory proceedings contradicts the standard of an effective remedy. It was concluded that the existing mechanism for appealing during preparatory court proceedings is declarative in nature and does not ensure the actual restoration of violated rights. The urgent need to amend and supplement the criminal procedural law by regulating the grounds, conditions, and procedure for appealing procedural decisions, actions, or inaction of pre-trial investigation authorities during preparatory court proceedings in order to ensure effective judicial protection of human rights, freedoms, and legitimate interests is emphasized.

Economic globalization has heightened tensions between national sovereignty and international trade obligations. This study compares constitutional review mechanisms in Indonesia, Thailand, and India, representing civil law and common law systems. Using normative legal methods with statute and comparative analysis, it finds that Indonesia applies ex post review of ratification laws, Thailand uses preventive ex ante review, and India employs substantive, precedent-based judicial review. Effectiveness varies: India achieves high substantive effectiveness through judicial activism, Thailand excels procedurally, and Indonesia remains limited to formal review. The study concludes that constitutional review effectiveness depends on institutional design, legal tradition, and the ability to balance constitutional supremacy with international commitments.

This study aims to analyze the position of statutory regulations as the main limiting framework for administrative discretion in Indonesian administrative law, particularly after the enactment of Law Number 11 of 2020 on Job Creation. The main issue examined is the normative shift caused by the removal of the requirement that discretion must not contradict statutory regulations, which potentially weakens legal certainty and judicial control. This research uses a normative juridical method with a regulatory and conceptualization approach, and is supported by the theory of discretionary justice, balance of legal objectives, and good governance. The findings indicate that the elimination of formal legality requirements transforms discretion from a legally constrained authority into a broader administrative freedom, increasing the risk of abuse of power and weakening the objective standards of judicial review in administrative courts. The study concludes that such a shift undermines the core principles of the rule of law and necessitates constitutional review to restore legal certainty, accountability, and effective judicial oversight.

After two years of the Chamber judgment rendered by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR delivered its final judgment of Semenya v. Switzerland (App no. 10934/21) on 10 July 2025. The Chamber judgment found violations of procedural aspects of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8, as well as Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In contrast to the Chamber judgment, the Grand Chamber found a violation of Article 6(1) ECHR due to the lack of a fair hearing caused by the limited scope of judicial review exercised by the Swiss Federal Tribunal (SFT) under Article 190(2)(e) of the Swiss Private International Law Act (Swiss PILA). Furthermore, it declared the applicant’s claims under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8, as well as Article 13 ECHR, inadmissible. This landmark decision is expected to significantly impact the Swiss legal system, as it places a positive obligation on Switzerland to adopt a broader interpretation of Article 190(2)(e) Swiss PILA in order to ensure the protection of substantive human rights within the framework of sports arbitration and the Swiss legal system.

This study examines whether the doctrine governing third-party allotments of new shares under Article 418(2) of the Korean Commercial Act adequately reflects ‘the shareholder equality principle’. Preemptive rights are a core shareholder right that preserves shareholders’ proportional economic value and collective control, and thus constitute a concrete expression of shareholder equality. However, Korean courts have assessed the legality of third-party allotments primarily based on abstract managerial necessity or significant effects on corporate control, without sufficiently considering the infringement of shareholders’ proportional interests caused by the exclusion of preemptive rights. This approach tends to focus on whether the allotment was motivated by an improper purpose, such as entrenchment in the context of control disputes, rather than on whether the resulting dilution disproportionately harms existing shareholders. By contrast, German stock law and case law treat the exclusion of preemptive rights as a serious restriction on shareholder rights and subject it to substantive judicial review based on the principle of proportionality, balancing objective corporate interests against shareholders’ disadvantages. In light of the 2025 amendment to the Korean Commercial Act, which extends directors’ duty of loyalty to shareholders, this study argues that the interpretation of third-party allotments should be restructured to require a proportional balancing of corporate interests and shareholders’ disadvantages.

Judicial review of corporate bankruptcy reorganization value in China: a critical analysis based on 590 judicial judgments

The legal sector is being affected by artificial intelligence around the world. Should we be more concerned about further developments, or can we look forward to a better functioning of the judiciary? This article seeks to find an answer, with a particular focus on administrative justice. Courts and administrative tribunals in Europe are not yet fully using automated decision-making applications. However, they are increasingly experimenting with supporting and collaborative applications of artificial intelligence. The effectiveness of artificial intelligence in judicial review is not in the hands of computer experts, but of judges. Automated predictive analytics tools can be used to express an administrative authority’s chance of a predictable judicial review. This is only relevant if there is no inherent tension between administrative authorities and courts regarding the use of artificial intelligence.

This paper aims to contribute to the debate about the legitimacy of judicial review. By relying on Bernard Williams’ ideas about reasons for action it aims to provide an additional argument to question the moral-political legitimacy of the practice of judicial review. In short, Bernard Williams’ ideas on internal reasons should be useful to better construct an argument against the legitimacy of judicial review. If only internal reasons can provide reasons for action, and only those reasons in a person’s motivational set do provide such reasons, there isn’t much hope on a text of a constitution providing external reasons to judges who decide on the meaning of a constitutional provision. But as William’s himself points out, a motivational set might be subject to change, if the person is shown why she should adopt into it a concrete reason. As I will argue, this process of deliberation in a pluralist society makes sense in a democratic arena rather than in a courtroom.

Judicial review of regulations below statutes by the Supreme Court of Indonesia plays a crucial role in safeguarding the hierarchy of laws and controlling executive regulations that have broad public impact. However, the procedural design of such judicial review has long been characterized by closed, document-based mechanisms with limited participation and transparency, raising concerns regarding the fulfillment of open justice and due process of law as minimum requirements for the legitimacy of erga omnes decisions. This study aims to examine whether the procedural design and practice of judicial review at the Supreme Court have met these principles and to formulate rational and constitutional procedural reforms without altering the Court’s authority. This research employs normative legal research methods using statutory, conceptual, and case-based approaches, supported by content analysis of selected judicial review decisions. The findings reveal that although procedural requirements are formally satisfied, judicial review at the Supreme Court remains procedurally minimalistic, non-deliberative, and insufficiently transparent, resulting in limited procedural justice and weakened normative legitimacy. To address this deficit, the study proposes procedural reforms consisting of limited open hearings, mandatory written and selective oral hearings, and minimum standards of legal reasoning, which can be implemented through amendments to Supreme Court Regulations and internal institutional policies. This study contributes to constitutional law scholarship by shifting the focus of judicial review discourse from authority-based debates to procedural legitimacy and demonstrates that strengthening due process and procedural openness is essential to enhancing the accountability and rationality of judicial review without expanding judicial power. Future research is encouraged to integrate empirical approaches to assess the effectiveness of procedural reforms and their impact on public trust in the judiciary.

The Agrarian Reform program mandates the redistribution of absentee land exceeding the maximum limit to ensure equitable land tenure among farmers. This study examines the implementation of land redistribution in a rural area of West Java Province, where approximately 263 hectares of individually owned customary land were designated for redistribution. However, only 164 hectares have been redistributed, with compensation provided to the original owners, leaving approximately 99 hectares undistributed and former owners without compensation. This research employs a juridical-normative approach, using descriptive-analytical methods, collecting data through library research and field studies, and analysing them qualitatively. The findings reveal three principal issues. First, incomplete redistribution creates legal uncertainty regarding land status and undermines the rights of both prospective beneficiaries and former landowners. Second, two forms of repressive legal protection are available to former landowners who have not received compensation: non-litigation mechanisms through administrative channels and litigation mechanisms through judicial proceedings. Third, obstacles to redistribution encompass both legal factors, such as regulatory gaps and the absence of enforceable sanctions against government inaction, and non-legal factors, such as administrative inefficiency and budgetary constraints. To address legal barriers, affected parties may file a judicial review petition with the Constitutional Court challenging the constitutionality of the prevailing land reform regulations. This study recommends regulatory reform to establish precise enforcement mechanisms, accelerated compensation procedures, and institutional accountability measures to complete the redistribution process and achieve the objectives of Agrarian Reform.

Abstract The construction sector is a major contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions that lead to climate change. Unsurprisingly, innovations to tackle the climate impacts of construction have been rooted in public law. The private sector has supported public law efforts through its own private law innovations. Some of its most notable innovations have been the extensive incorporation of climate provisions in standard form contracts like the FIDIC (International Federation of Consulting Engineers) and New Engineering Contract (NEC). The most recent innovation has been the addition of a climate clause (Option X29) to the NEC4, the latest version in the NEC series. Coming from the private sector and being grounded in private law, the potential of Option X29 to advance efforts to limit climate impacts of construction has been overlooked. Option X29 empowers the public to use judicial review to compel states to develop public law regulation of climate impacts of construction.

The purpose of the study is to explore the judicial review of automated decisions issued by artificial intelligence systems, a significant concern for both Iraqi and French law. This led to an investigation and mapping of the challenges involved in compliance with judicial review of automated decisions issued by artificial intelligence systems in France and Iraq. A socio-legal study was adopted, using a functional, library-based comparative approach that focuses on how each legal system responds to a similar set of issues raised by AI-based automated decisions, rather than on finding similarities in formal legal texts. This approach helps identify functional alternatives, regulatory lacunae, and best practices that can be transferred across borders regarding the impact of judicial review of automated decisions made by artificial intelligence systems. The findings revealed that, for Iraq to meet the AI obligation, it must overcome challenges, including cost and complexity. Nevertheless, these costs are lower than the drawbacks associated with non-compliance. Following judicial review, an automated decision issued by an artificial intelligence system can help the Iraqi judiciary grow. However, it is difficult and expensive to comply with these requirements. The current research hopes that the AI regulatory authorities in France and Iraq will adopt more effective measures to ensure efficient compliance with AI.

Deference by courts to democratically elected legislature is at the heart of our constitutional democracy. This paper constructs a novel database of 249 cases involving the judicial review of legislation in Canada from the inception of the Charter to present. Deference increased sharply as the Charter was introduced, but has been steadily decreasing since 2000 after the McLachlin and Wagner courts. Deference is rising for the right to free expression, but declining for penal statutes and the right to equality. The recent fall in judicial deference can largely be attributed to certain Liberal appointees striking down more penal statutes due to both construing criminal rights more broadly and, as predicted by Irwin Toy , finding that the least intrusive means have not been taken. The justice-level data also provide insights on differences (or lack thereof) in judicial behaviour across sex and politics. One could conclude that Canada does, in fact, have de facto tiered judicial review.

More than 3 million adults are under community supervision in the US. Large probation populations and probation’s net-widening effects have motivated reform mobilizing interdependent actors. In Georgia, Senate Bill (SB) 174 created early discharge pathways that involved review by the Department of Community Supervision (DCS), including officers and an automated algorithm, and circuit judges. SB105, passed in 2021, strengthened SB174’s mandates. We evaluate SB105′s effectiveness at streamlining review using multilevel modeling, examining how loose coupling—sequentially between actors and laterally across circuits—and judicial discretion interacted to shape the policy’s procedural effects. SB105 shortened cumulative review times, and DCS’s algorithm effectively automated changes to screening criteria. However, judicial review times increased sporadically, reflecting circuit-specific characteristics. Processing varied by race, sex, and offense type. Findings suggest that automation can relieve administrative bottlenecks but, through loose coupling, may produce uneven outcomes unless reforms account for geographic differences and actors’ paradigms for decision-making.

The Court of Justice of the European Union, in case C-600/23 RFC Seraing, examined whether national legislation that automatically attributes res judicata effect to decisions of the Court of Arbitration for Sport in ongoing disputes between the same parties is compatible with Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The CJEU's decision primarily concerns sports arbitration, but its significance extends beyond the field of sports. It provides important insights into the relationship between arbitration and European law, particularly in light of the requirement for effective judicial review.

Pneumonia in frail older adults: from diagnosis to optimized management.

This article provides a critical analysis of the classification of the external control of public administration within the theory of state functions, a subject characterized by significant divergence in Brazilian legal doctrine. The core of the controversy lies in the legal nature of the activities performed by the Courts of Accounts. On one hand, some scholars argue that, under the Brazilian model, these Courts exercise a jurisdictional function based on their constitutional authority to judge public accounts (Art. 71, II, CF/88). Conversely, the majority view classifies it as an administrative function, emphasizing the absence of material res judicata and the susceptibility of its acts to judicial review. This paper proposes a reinterpretation of this framework, advocating for the recognition of external control as an autonomous public function, endowed with distinctive characteristics that justify its individualization. It is argued that this conceptual autonomy enhances the theoretical understanding of state operations and yields significant practical implications by facilitating the definition of the legal regime applicable to both administrative and external control functions, both of which coexist within the Courts of Accounts.

The Types of Anti-avoidance Clauses and Judicial Review Distinguished Professor, Department of Finance and Law, Chung Cheng University