A new framework for understanding contemporary administrative law, through a comparative analysis of case law from Australia, Canada, England, Ireland, and New Zealand. The author argues that the field is structured by four values: individual self-realisation, good administration, electoral legitimacy and decisional autonomy.

This collection of essays brings together the author's work on th growth of administrative monarchy in Angevin England, concentrating upon the personnnel of royal government and especially upon the common law courts. It describes the institutions of the English common law during its formative period, including the growth of the jury and of the two central courts, Common Pleas at Westminster and the court following the king, later King's Bench. Another group of essays illustrate the justices' handling of cases coming before the law courts, examining please that touched the king's interest. After a discussion of the authorship of England's first great lawbook, Glanvill, other essays examine the justices, their level of literacy, the conflicts facing the clerics among them in hearing secular cases, and the hostility that they aroused as 'new men' in the king's service from conservative elements in society.

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

Schwartz provides a masterly exposition of administrative law through a comparative study of the French droit administratif, arguably the most sophisticated Continental model. As Vanderbilt points out in his introduction, this is an important field that involves much more than administrative procedure. It deals directly with some of the most crucial issues of modern government regarding the distribution of power between governmental units, the resulting effect on the freedom of the individual and on the strength and stability of the state. Reprint of the sole edition. "[T]his book represents a significant achievement.... Unlike so many volumes that roll off the press these days, it fills a real need; and, though perhaps not the definitive work in English on the subject, it fills it extremely well." --Frederic S. Burin, Columbia Law Review 54 (1954) 1016 Bernard Schwartz [1923-1997] was professor of law and director of the Institute of Comparative Law, New York University. He was the author of over fifty books, including The Code Napoleon and the Common-Law World (1956), the five-volume Commentary on the Constitution of the United States (1963-68), Constitutional Law: A Textbook (2d ed., 1979), Administrative Law: A Casebook (4th ed., 1994) and A History of the Supreme Court (1993).

This casebook studies the law governing judicial review of administrative action. It examines the foundations and the organisation of judicial review, the types of administrative action, and corresponding kinds of review and access to court. Significant attention is also devoted to the conduct of the court proceedings, the grounds for review, and the standard of review and the remedies available in judicial review cases. The relevant rules and case law of Germany, England and Wales, France and the Netherlands are analysed and compared. The similarities and differences between the legal systems are highlighted. The impact of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights is considered, as well as the influence of EU legislative initiatives and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, in the legal systems examined. Furthermore, the system of judicial review of administrative action before the European courts is studied and compared to that of the national legal systems. During the last decade, the growing influence of EU law on national procedural law has been increasingly recognised. However, the way in which national systems of judicial review address the requirements imposed by EU law differs substantially. The casebook compares the primary sources (legislation, case law etc) of the legal systems covered, and explores their differences and similarities: this examination reveals to what extent a ius commune of judicial review of administrative action is developing.