In this Handbook, distinguished experts in the field of administrative law discuss a wide range of issues from a comparative perspective. The book covers the historical beginnings of comparative administrative law scholarship, and discusses important methodological issues and basic concepts such as administrative power and accountability.

This book offers a comparative introduction to the most important aspects of administrative law in various EU Member States (France, Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom), at the level of the EU and in the United States of America. It aspires to contribute to the 'transboundary' understanding of different regimes related to actions and decisions of the administration.

This book investigates judicial deference to the administration in judicial review, a concept and legal practice that can be found to a greater or lesser degree in every constitutional system. In each system, deference functions differently, because the positioning of the judiciary with regard to the separation of powers, the role of the courts as a mechanism of checks and balances, and the scope of judicial review differ. In addition, the way deference works within the constitutional system itself is complex, multi-faceted and often covert. Although judicial deference to the administration is a topical theme in comparative administrative law, a general examination of national systems is still lacking. As such, a theoretical and empirical review is called for. Accordingly, this book presents national reports from 15 jurisdictions, ranging from Argentina, Canada and the US, to the EU. Constituting the outcome of the 20th General Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law, held in Fukuoka, Japan in July 2018, it offers a valuable and unique resource for the study of comparative administrative law.

This book examines administrative law throughout Asia, exploring the profound changes in many legal regimes that have occurred. It shows how many states have shifted towards a more market-oriented regulatory state model, involving a greater role for judges and law-like processes, and explores the profound implications of this for policy-making.

This book examines different legal systems and analyses how the judge in each of them performs a meaningful review of the proportional use of discretionary powers by public bodies. Although the proportionality test is not equally deep-rooted in the literature and case-law of France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, this principle has assumed an increasing importance partly due to the influence of the European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights. In the United States, different standards of judicial review are applied to review ‘arbitrary and capricious’ agency discretion. However, do US judges achieve a similar result to the proportionality or reasonableness test? Drawing together a selection of key experts in the field, this book analyses the principle of proportionality in the judicial review of administrative decisions from different perspectives. The principle is first examined in the context of recent developments in the literature and case-law, including the inevitable EU influence, then light shall be shed on the meaning of this principle in the specific case-law of the European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights. Finally, the authors go on to explore the ways in which US judges consciously ‘sanction’ the ‘disproportionate’ and/or unreasonable’ use of agency discretion. In the legal systems where the proportionality test plays a very limited role, Ranchordás and de Waard also try to clarify why this is the case and look at what alternative solutions have been found. This book will be of great interest to scholars of public and administrative law, and EU law.

Explores the English origins of the principles of judicial review in common law jurisdictions and autochthonous pressures for their adaptation.