法庭之友和在澳大利亚高等法院获得宪法司法的机会

E. Willheim
{"title":"法庭之友和在澳大利亚高等法院获得宪法司法的机会","authors":"E. Willheim","doi":"10.53300/001C.5565","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"I begin with the deliberatively provocative proposition that the approach of the High Court of Australia to amicus applications in constitutional cases is fundamentally flawed. Why? Because the Court determines amicus applications from the narrow perspective of adversarial litigation. This perspective fails to give adequate and necessary recognition to the Court’s role as Australia’s final appellate court and Australia’s constitutional court. It fails adequately to recognise the Court’s lawmaking function. Most importantly, it fails adequately to recognise the broader dimensions of constitutional litigation as public interest litigation affecting the wider community. On this basis, the questions the Court should properly address are whether it is in the public interest that the proposed amicus submissions be heard, in particular, whether they are relevant and important and whether there is any good reason why the amicus application should not be allowed. The High Court Rules and the Court’s procedures should be adapted to facilitate rather than obstruct amicus applications.","PeriodicalId":165934,"journal":{"name":"The Bond Law Review","volume":"68 5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Amici Curiae and Access to Constitutional Justice in the High Court of Australia\",\"authors\":\"E. Willheim\",\"doi\":\"10.53300/001C.5565\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"I begin with the deliberatively provocative proposition that the approach of the High Court of Australia to amicus applications in constitutional cases is fundamentally flawed. Why? Because the Court determines amicus applications from the narrow perspective of adversarial litigation. This perspective fails to give adequate and necessary recognition to the Court’s role as Australia’s final appellate court and Australia’s constitutional court. It fails adequately to recognise the Court’s lawmaking function. Most importantly, it fails adequately to recognise the broader dimensions of constitutional litigation as public interest litigation affecting the wider community. On this basis, the questions the Court should properly address are whether it is in the public interest that the proposed amicus submissions be heard, in particular, whether they are relevant and important and whether there is any good reason why the amicus application should not be allowed. The High Court Rules and the Court’s procedures should be adapted to facilitate rather than obstruct amicus applications.\",\"PeriodicalId\":165934,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Bond Law Review\",\"volume\":\"68 5 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Bond Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.53300/001C.5565\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Bond Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53300/001C.5565","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

我从一个有意的挑衅性命题开始,即澳大利亚高等法院在宪法案件中处理法庭之友申请的方法从根本上是有缺陷的。为什么?因为法院从对抗性诉讼的狭隘角度来决定法庭之友申请。这种观点未能充分和必要地承认法院作为澳大利亚最终上诉法院和澳大利亚宪法法院的作用。它没有充分认识到法院的立法职能。最重要的是,它未能充分认识到宪法诉讼作为影响更广泛社会的公共利益诉讼的更广泛层面。在此基础上,法院应妥善处理的问题是,听取拟议的“法庭之友”意见书是否符合公众利益,特别是它们是否相关和重要,以及是否有充分理由不允许“法庭之友”申请。高等法院规则和法院程序应加以调整,以便利而不是阻碍法庭之友的申请。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Amici Curiae and Access to Constitutional Justice in the High Court of Australia
I begin with the deliberatively provocative proposition that the approach of the High Court of Australia to amicus applications in constitutional cases is fundamentally flawed. Why? Because the Court determines amicus applications from the narrow perspective of adversarial litigation. This perspective fails to give adequate and necessary recognition to the Court’s role as Australia’s final appellate court and Australia’s constitutional court. It fails adequately to recognise the Court’s lawmaking function. Most importantly, it fails adequately to recognise the broader dimensions of constitutional litigation as public interest litigation affecting the wider community. On this basis, the questions the Court should properly address are whether it is in the public interest that the proposed amicus submissions be heard, in particular, whether they are relevant and important and whether there is any good reason why the amicus application should not be allowed. The High Court Rules and the Court’s procedures should be adapted to facilitate rather than obstruct amicus applications.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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