Access to Constitutional Justice: Opening Address

Mason Ac Kbe, S. Anthony
{"title":"Access to Constitutional Justice: Opening Address","authors":"Mason Ac Kbe, S. Anthony","doi":"10.53300/001C.5555","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The theme of this symposium is accessing constitutional justice which is also the subject of Patrick Keyzer’s challenging book, Open Constitutional Courts . There are many strands to this theme. Of these strands, the papers in this symposium concentrate on existing limitations to access to constitutional justice and generally favour a relaxation of them, a sentiment with which I agree. Access to the courts for the enforcement of provisions of the Constitution has, however, been impeded in various ways. Rules relating to standing, the position of amici curiae, the requirements of justiciability and limitations on the concept of judicial power, especially those arising from the concept of ‘matter’ in Ch III of the Constitution, as well as the cost of litigation, have restricted access to the courts for constitutional relief. These rules have been strongly influenced by several factors. They include (i) the traditional view that the judicial process involves the adjudication of a controversy which results in the determination of the existence of a right or duty asserted by one or more parties against another or others; (ii) the perceived need to protect the courts from an invasion of meddlesome busybodies and; (iii) a misplaced belief in the willingness of the Attorney-General to represent the community’s interest in upholding the law. The traditional view failed to accommodate the special considerations which apply to access to constitutional justice.","PeriodicalId":165934,"journal":{"name":"The Bond Law Review","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Bond Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53300/001C.5555","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The theme of this symposium is accessing constitutional justice which is also the subject of Patrick Keyzer’s challenging book, Open Constitutional Courts . There are many strands to this theme. Of these strands, the papers in this symposium concentrate on existing limitations to access to constitutional justice and generally favour a relaxation of them, a sentiment with which I agree. Access to the courts for the enforcement of provisions of the Constitution has, however, been impeded in various ways. Rules relating to standing, the position of amici curiae, the requirements of justiciability and limitations on the concept of judicial power, especially those arising from the concept of ‘matter’ in Ch III of the Constitution, as well as the cost of litigation, have restricted access to the courts for constitutional relief. These rules have been strongly influenced by several factors. They include (i) the traditional view that the judicial process involves the adjudication of a controversy which results in the determination of the existence of a right or duty asserted by one or more parties against another or others; (ii) the perceived need to protect the courts from an invasion of meddlesome busybodies and; (iii) a misplaced belief in the willingness of the Attorney-General to represent the community’s interest in upholding the law. The traditional view failed to accommodate the special considerations which apply to access to constitutional justice.
诉诸宪法司法:开幕词
本次研讨会的主题是宪法正义的实现这也是帕特里克·凯泽尔颇具挑战性的著作《开放宪法法院》的主题。这个主题有很多方面。在这些方面,本次研讨会的论文集中于现有的宪法司法限制,并普遍赞成放宽这些限制,我同意这种观点。但是,为执行《宪法》的规定而诉诸法院却受到各种阻碍。与诉讼资格、法庭之友的立场、可诉性的要求和司法权概念的限制有关的规则,特别是由《宪法》第三章“事项”概念引起的规则,以及诉讼费用,限制了向法院寻求宪法救济的机会。这些规则受到几个因素的强烈影响。它们包括(i)传统观点,即司法程序涉及对争议的裁决,从而确定一方或多方对另一方或其他人主张的权利或义务的存在;(ii)保护法院免受好管闲事者入侵的明显需要;(iii)错误地相信总检察长愿意代表社会维护法律的利益。传统观点未能顾及适用于获得宪法司法的特殊考虑。
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