给基础设施踩刹车?司法审查对HS2的挑战与对“诉讼权力”的批判。

IF 1 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Oxford Journal of Legal Studies Pub Date : 2025-05-19 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1093/ojls/gqaf015
Sam Guy
{"title":"给基础设施踩刹车?司法审查对HS2的挑战与对“诉讼权力”的批判。","authors":"Sam Guy","doi":"10.1093/ojls/gqaf015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A growing critique regards judicial review as inhibiting infrastructure delivery on the basis of what I term 'litigant power', which may come to represent the dominant political critique of judicial review under the Labour administration. This differs from classic concerns of judicial power, focusing on how legal challenges by project opponents-notwithstanding their doctrinal outcome-can produce delay and embed a chilling overcaution among industry and policy makers. Having articulated the litigant power critique alongside judicial power, the article explores judicial review's impacts on infrastructure delivery through a case study of the legal challenges to England's High-Speed 2 railway project. I argue this litigation presents little evidence of judicial overreach, but in some ways supports litigant power concerns. Nevertheless, I suggest the litigant power critique risks oversimplification, especially in view of the radical reform often proposed, and it also downplays chilling effects associated with the constitution's centralisation of government decision-making power.</p>","PeriodicalId":47225,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"45 3","pages":"669-701"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12395228/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Putting the Brakes on Infrastructure? Judicial Review Challenges to HS2 and the Critique of 'Litigant Power'.\",\"authors\":\"Sam Guy\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ojls/gqaf015\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A growing critique regards judicial review as inhibiting infrastructure delivery on the basis of what I term 'litigant power', which may come to represent the dominant political critique of judicial review under the Labour administration. This differs from classic concerns of judicial power, focusing on how legal challenges by project opponents-notwithstanding their doctrinal outcome-can produce delay and embed a chilling overcaution among industry and policy makers. Having articulated the litigant power critique alongside judicial power, the article explores judicial review's impacts on infrastructure delivery through a case study of the legal challenges to England's High-Speed 2 railway project. I argue this litigation presents little evidence of judicial overreach, but in some ways supports litigant power concerns. Nevertheless, I suggest the litigant power critique risks oversimplification, especially in view of the radical reform often proposed, and it also downplays chilling effects associated with the constitution's centralisation of government decision-making power.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47225,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oxford Journal of Legal Studies\",\"volume\":\"45 3\",\"pages\":\"669-701\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12395228/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oxford Journal of Legal Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqaf015\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Journal of Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqaf015","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

越来越多的批评认为司法审查阻碍了基础设施的交付,这是基于我所说的“诉讼权力”,这可能代表了工党政府对司法审查的主要政治批评。这不同于对司法权的传统关注,后者关注的是项目反对者的法律挑战——尽管他们的理论结果——如何造成拖延,并在行业和政策制定者中嵌入令人心寒的过度谨慎。在阐述了诉讼权力和司法权的批判之后,本文通过对英国高速铁路项目的法律挑战的案例研究,探讨了司法审查对基础设施交付的影响。我认为,这起诉讼几乎没有司法越权的证据,但在某些方面支持了诉讼当事人权力的担忧。然而,我认为对诉讼权力的批判有过于简单化的风险,尤其是考虑到经常提出的激进改革,而且它还淡化了与宪法中政府决策权集中相关的寒蝉效应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Putting the Brakes on Infrastructure? Judicial Review Challenges to HS2 and the Critique of 'Litigant Power'.

A growing critique regards judicial review as inhibiting infrastructure delivery on the basis of what I term 'litigant power', which may come to represent the dominant political critique of judicial review under the Labour administration. This differs from classic concerns of judicial power, focusing on how legal challenges by project opponents-notwithstanding their doctrinal outcome-can produce delay and embed a chilling overcaution among industry and policy makers. Having articulated the litigant power critique alongside judicial power, the article explores judicial review's impacts on infrastructure delivery through a case study of the legal challenges to England's High-Speed 2 railway project. I argue this litigation presents little evidence of judicial overreach, but in some ways supports litigant power concerns. Nevertheless, I suggest the litigant power critique risks oversimplification, especially in view of the radical reform often proposed, and it also downplays chilling effects associated with the constitution's centralisation of government decision-making power.

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
2.50
自引率
8.30%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: The Oxford Journal of Legal Studies is published on behalf of the Faculty of Law in the University of Oxford. It is designed to encourage interest in all matters relating to law, with an emphasis on matters of theory and on broad issues arising from the relationship of law to other disciplines. No topic of legal interest is excluded from consideration. In addition to traditional questions of legal interest, the following are all within the purview of the journal: comparative and international law, the law of the European Community, legal history and philosophy, and interdisciplinary material in areas of relevance.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信