Due Process Of Law Beyond The State

Analysing both national and transnational processes, this volume offers an integrated viewpoint of the principles governing the procedural due process requirements of regional and global regulatory regimes.

Analysing both national and transnational processes, this volume offers an integrated viewpoint of the principles governing the procedural due process requirements of regional and global regulatory regimes.

Traditionally the issues concerning the exercise of administrative powers by public authorities were considered a type of national enclave. It was the responsibility of the state to ensure that adequate procedural safeguards were in place to prevent the government from interfering with the rights of its citizens. During the last few decades, however, a variety of sets of rules regarding procedural due process has developed to govern the conduct of those public authorities who operate on a regional or world regulatory footing, such as the European Union and the World Trade Organization. Analysing the procedural due process requirements applicable to administrative procedure beyond the borders of the States, this volume demonstrates how regional and global regulatory regimes impose requirements that are strikingly similar to those set out by the most developed legal systems of the world. The book argues that such requirements of administrative procedure are justified not only by the traditional concerns for the protection of individual interests against the misuse of power by public authorities, but also by other values, such as good governance and cooperation between public authorities. Finally, the book conceptualizes such rules as legal requirements which arbitral tribunals and other agencies should respect when interpreting standards of justice.

In this set of interdisciplinary essays leading scholars discuss the future of the Rule of Law, a concept whose meaning and import has become ever more topical and elusive. Historically the term denoted the idea of 'government limited by law'. It has also come to be equated, more broadly, with certain goods suggested by the idea of legality as such, including the preservation of human dignity and other individual and social benefits predicated upon or conducive to a rule-based social order. But in both its narrow and broader senses the Rule of Law remains a much contested concept. These essays seek to capture the main areas and levels of controversy by 'relocating' the Rule of Law not just at the philosophical level, but also in its main contemporary arenas of application - both national, and increasingly, supranational and international.

Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice defines "international law" to include not only "custom" and "convention" between States but also "the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations" within their municipal legal systems. In 1953, Bin Cheng wrote his seminal book on general principles, identifying core legal principles common to various domestic legal systems across the globe. This monograph summarizes and analyzes the general principles of law and norms of international due process, with a particular focus on developments since Cheng's writing. The aim is to collect and distill these principles and norms in a single volume as a practical resource for international law jurists, advocates, and scholars. The information contained in this book holds considerable importance given the growth of inter-state intercourse resulting in the increased use of general principles over the past 60 years. General principles can serve as rules of decision, whether in interpreting a treaty or contract, determining causation, or ascertaining unjust enrichment. They also include a core set of procedural requirements that should be followed in any adjudicative system, such as the right to impartiality and the prohibition on fraud. Although the general principles are, by definition, basic and even rudimentary, they hold vital importance for the rule of law in international relations. They are meant not to define a rule of law, but rather the rule of law.

From two legal luminaries, a highly original framework for restoring confidence in a government bureaucracy increasingly derided as “the deep state.” Is the modern administrative state illegitimate? Unconstitutional? Unaccountable? Dangerous? Intolerable? American public law has long been riven by a persistent, serious conflict, a kind of low-grade cold war, over these questions. Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule argue that the administrative state can be redeemed, as long as public officials are constrained by what they call the morality of administrative law. Law and Leviathan elaborates a number of principles that underlie this moral regime. Officials who respect that morality never fail to make rules in the first place. They ensure transparency, so that people are made aware of the rules with which they must comply. They never abuse retroactivity, so that people can rely on current rules, which are not under constant threat of change. They make rules that are understandable and avoid issuing rules that contradict each other. These principles may seem simple, but they have a great deal of power. Already, without explicit enunciation, they limit the activities of administrative agencies every day. But we can aspire for better. In more robust form, these principles could address many of the concerns that have critics of the administrative state mourning what they see as the demise of the rule of law. The bureaucratic Leviathan may be an inescapable reality of complex modern democracies, but Sunstein and Vermeule show how we can at last make peace between those who accept its necessity and those who yearn for its downfall.

A comparative and collaborative study of the foundational principles and concepts that underpin different domestic systems of criminal law.

With nuanced perspective and detailed case studies, Due Process of Lawmaking explores the law of lawmaking in the United States, South Africa, Germany, and the European Union. This comparative work deals broadly with public policymaking in the legislative and executive branches. It frames the inquiry through three principles of legitimacy: democracy, rights, and competence. Drawing on the insights of positive political economy, the authors explicate the ways in which courts uphold these principles in the different systems. Judicial review in the American presidential system suggests lessons for the parliamentary systems in Germany and South Africa, while the experience of parliamentary government yields potential insights into the reform of the American law of lawmaking. Taken together, the national experiences shed light on the special case of the EU. In dialogue with each other, the case studies demonstrate the interplay between constitutional principles and political imperatives under a range of different conditions.

This book examines how the judicialization of politics, and the politicization of courts, affect representative democracy, rule of law, and separation of powers. This volume critically assesses the phenomena of judicialization of politics and politicization of the judiciary. It explores the rising impact of courts on key constitutional principles, such as democracy and separation of powers, which is paralleled by increasing criticism of this influence from both liberal and illiberal perspectives. The book also addresses the challenges to rule of law as a principle, preconditioned on independent and powerful courts, which are triggered by both democratic backsliding and the mushrooming of populist constitutionalism and illiberal constitutional regimes. Presenting a wide range of case studies, the book will be a valuable resource for students and academics in constitutional law and political science seeking to understand the increasingly complex relationships between the judiciary, executive and legislature.

Magna Carta and Due Process of Law: The Road to American Judicial Activism provides a superb history of the rise of Parliament and the American Constitution. Unlike other authors covering this topic, Thomas Burrell examines American courts and discusses judicial activism. The due process language in the Magna Carta and English history reveals a strenuous effort to establish and protect participatory government from the arbitrary king ruling by will. In America, the framers of state and federal constitutions copied the language. Courts and common-law constitutionalism, however, rewrote the concept of the language. American courts have championed substantive due process to the detriment of representative government. After introducing the subject matter, Burrell provides a brief history of medieval political theory. The theory of kingship is examined and discussed. In the third chapter, we learn of Henry II’s rule per voluntatem as well as his assizes and the birth of the common law. The fourth chapter discusses King John and his fight with the barons leading up to the 1215 Magna Carta. With the Magna Carta, the barons established a foothold in the fight against the arbitrary king. The fifth chapter examines the remainder of the thirteenth century. With additional reform efforts, the barons took the gains of the Magna Carta to another level. Following Henry III’s reign, Edward I was a good king who ruled with his Council in Parliament. The sixth chapter discusses the rise of participatory government in the fourteenth century. During Edward II’s reign, the barons and Ordainers infiltrated the king’s Council in Parliament and transformed Parliament into a baronial system with lords and peers. In this chapter, the Commons’ petition is discussed along with the Council and the common law. Knights and burgesses, the Commons, frequently complained of royal or conciliar encroachment on the common law and Parliament’s law of the land—the need to safeguard due process of law from arbitrary forces. The seventh chapter summarizes medieval English legal history and the High Court of Parliament. Burrell makes several observations about the English Constitution. The eighth chapter carries the English Constitution into the seventeenth century. Briefly, this chapter notes conflict during the Stuarts and the resulting changes to the English form of government. Many of the gains introduced with the Magna Carta and fourteenth-century reforms were realized in the seventeenth century. The ninth chapter discusses the American Constitution and the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment uses language directly from Magna Carta’s Chapter 39. The tenth chapter examines judicial activism and substantive due process in the state and federal courts. American judges in the early nineteenth century struggled with language and fused variable meanings and constitutional common law to the concept of due process of law. Ultimately, judges inverted the original meaning from protecting participatory government to creating arbitrary government in the judiciary. One case precedent provided authority for the next until a complete fabrication of the concept was achieved. America became a judicial state. In this judicial state, judges have the power to socially reengineer society by inventing constitutional restrictions on representative government. The people are left out of the equation. Whether you are on the American or English side of the Atlantic, you’ll find Magna Carta and Due Process of Law: The Road to American Judicial Activism educational and rewarding. Have a position on gay marriage, abortion, equal rights, religious liberty, or the death penalty? Improve your knowledge and argument with Magna Carta and Due Process of Law. In the process, you’ll learn about English legal history, the American Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the United States Supreme Court.