Proportionality in English Administrative Law: Resistance and Strategy in Relational Dynamics

Yseult Marique, S. Boyron
{"title":"Proportionality in English Administrative Law: Resistance and Strategy in Relational Dynamics","authors":"Yseult Marique, S. Boyron","doi":"10.7590/187479821X16190058548736","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Proportionality is at the centre of heated debates in English administrative law. It has been adopted for matters pertaining to European law and the European Convention on Human Rights, but its use in other areas parts of English administrative law is highly contentious. While some\n arguments in favour or against applying proportionality in England are similar to those exchanged in relation to other legal systems (such as tensions between increased objectivity in judicial control over administrative action vs. the desirability of more limited control), other arguments\n are more specific to English administrative law. To understand the challenges encountered by proportionality in English administrative law, this paper adopts a contextual analysis, putting the emphasis on the relational dynamics framing the interactions between the main actors involved in\n the proportionality test. Paradoxically, this perspective rehabilitates the analysis of the legal techniques behind transplants such as proportionality: indeed, transplants are vehicles for legal changes in ways that go beyond the circulation of ideas across the world. Instead of being merely\n superficial and rhetorical, transplants engage deeply with the whole gamut of institutions and actors in a legal system, calling on them to rearticulate their implied and explicit relationships.","PeriodicalId":294114,"journal":{"name":"Review of European Administrative Law","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of European Administrative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7590/187479821X16190058548736","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Proportionality is at the centre of heated debates in English administrative law. It has been adopted for matters pertaining to European law and the European Convention on Human Rights, but its use in other areas parts of English administrative law is highly contentious. While some arguments in favour or against applying proportionality in England are similar to those exchanged in relation to other legal systems (such as tensions between increased objectivity in judicial control over administrative action vs. the desirability of more limited control), other arguments are more specific to English administrative law. To understand the challenges encountered by proportionality in English administrative law, this paper adopts a contextual analysis, putting the emphasis on the relational dynamics framing the interactions between the main actors involved in the proportionality test. Paradoxically, this perspective rehabilitates the analysis of the legal techniques behind transplants such as proportionality: indeed, transplants are vehicles for legal changes in ways that go beyond the circulation of ideas across the world. Instead of being merely superficial and rhetorical, transplants engage deeply with the whole gamut of institutions and actors in a legal system, calling on them to rearticulate their implied and explicit relationships.
英国行政法中的比例性:关系动力学中的阻力与策略
比例性是英国行政法中激烈争论的核心问题。它已被用于与欧洲法律和欧洲人权公约有关的事项,但它在英国行政法的其他领域的使用是极具争议的。虽然一些支持或反对在英国适用比例性的论点与其他法律制度(例如对行政行为的司法控制的客观性增加与更有限控制的可取性之间的紧张关系)相似,但其他论点则更具体地针对英国行政法。为了理解比例性在英国行政法中遇到的挑战,本文采用了语境分析,重点研究了比例性测试中主要行为者之间互动的关系动态框架。矛盾的是,这种观点恢复了对移植背后的法律技术的分析,比如比例性:事实上,移植是法律变革的工具,其方式超越了思想在世界各地的传播。移植物不仅仅是表面的和修辞的,而是与法律体系中的所有机构和行动者深入接触,呼吁他们重新阐明他们隐含的和明确的关系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信