重新评估相称性:1981 年英国国籍法》第 6 条下的默示限制和司法审查

IF 0.3 Q3 LAW
Arfan Khan
{"title":"重新评估相称性:1981 年英国国籍法》第 6 条下的默示限制和司法审查","authors":"Arfan Khan","doi":"10.1093/slr/hmae005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There exists a lively debate regarding whether proportionality outside of the European Convention on Human Rights is an independent ground for judicial review or overlaps with the Wednesbury Unreasonableness or irrationality ground and is indistinguishable from it.1 This Article contends that proportionality, as a fair balance test, is an implied limitation to a statutory power and, therefore, constitutes an independent test within section 6 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (BNA 1981). Consequently, if a decision is disproportionate, it is amenable to judicial review on the existing ground of illegality. In that case, it is not necessary to consider an independent Wednesbury unreasonableness or irrationality test.","PeriodicalId":43737,"journal":{"name":"Statute Law Review","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reassessing Proportionality: Implied Limitations and Judicial Review under Section 6 of the British Nationality Act 1981\",\"authors\":\"Arfan Khan\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/slr/hmae005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"There exists a lively debate regarding whether proportionality outside of the European Convention on Human Rights is an independent ground for judicial review or overlaps with the Wednesbury Unreasonableness or irrationality ground and is indistinguishable from it.1 This Article contends that proportionality, as a fair balance test, is an implied limitation to a statutory power and, therefore, constitutes an independent test within section 6 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (BNA 1981). Consequently, if a decision is disproportionate, it is amenable to judicial review on the existing ground of illegality. In that case, it is not necessary to consider an independent Wednesbury unreasonableness or irrationality test.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43737,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Statute Law Review\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Statute Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/slr/hmae005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Statute Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/slr/hmae005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

关于《欧洲人权公约》之外的相称性是一个独立的司法审查理由,还是与韦德内斯伯里的不合理或不合理理由重叠且无法区分的问题,存在着激烈的争论。因此,如果一项决定是不相称的,则可以现有的非法性为由对其进行司法审查。在这种情况下,就没有必要考虑独立的韦德斯伯里不合理或不理性检验标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reassessing Proportionality: Implied Limitations and Judicial Review under Section 6 of the British Nationality Act 1981
There exists a lively debate regarding whether proportionality outside of the European Convention on Human Rights is an independent ground for judicial review or overlaps with the Wednesbury Unreasonableness or irrationality ground and is indistinguishable from it.1 This Article contends that proportionality, as a fair balance test, is an implied limitation to a statutory power and, therefore, constitutes an independent test within section 6 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (BNA 1981). Consequently, if a decision is disproportionate, it is amenable to judicial review on the existing ground of illegality. In that case, it is not necessary to consider an independent Wednesbury unreasonableness or irrationality test.
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
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
期刊介绍: The principal objectives of the Review are to provide a vehicle for the consideration of the legislative process, the use of legislation as an instrument of public policy and of the drafting and interpretation of legislation. The Review, which was first established in 1980, is the only journal of its kind within the Commonwealth. It is of particular value to lawyers in both private practice and in public service, and to academics, both lawyers and political scientists, who write and teach within the field of legislation.
×
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