对政党的司法干预:Setka v Carroll〔2019〕VSC 571

Q3 Social Sciences
Harry Stratton
{"title":"对政党的司法干预:Setka v Carroll〔2019〕VSC 571","authors":"Harry Stratton","doi":"10.1080/14729342.2020.1739386","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In Setka v Carroll [2019] VSC 571, the Supreme Court of Victoria rejected an attempt to use private causes of action and remedies to vindicate civil rights to participate in a political party. The decision stands in stark contrast to earlier English and Australian decisions, which have used injunctions restraining breaches of contract or the deprivation of proprietary interests to prevent wrongful expulsions and enforce political parties’ rules. This note considers the weaknesses of private law remedies in protecting party members’ rights, and the possibility of more conventional judicial review of party decisions.","PeriodicalId":35148,"journal":{"name":"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14729342.2020.1739386","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Judicial intervention into political parties: Setka v Carroll [2019] VSC 571\",\"authors\":\"Harry Stratton\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14729342.2020.1739386\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In Setka v Carroll [2019] VSC 571, the Supreme Court of Victoria rejected an attempt to use private causes of action and remedies to vindicate civil rights to participate in a political party. The decision stands in stark contrast to earlier English and Australian decisions, which have used injunctions restraining breaches of contract or the deprivation of proprietary interests to prevent wrongful expulsions and enforce political parties’ rules. This note considers the weaknesses of private law remedies in protecting party members’ rights, and the possibility of more conventional judicial review of party decisions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35148,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14729342.2020.1739386\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2020.1739386\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14729342.2020.1739386","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要在Setka诉Carroll【2019】VSC 571案中,维多利亚州最高法院驳回了利用私人诉讼理由和补救措施来维护公民参与政党权利的企图。这一决定与英国和澳大利亚早期的决定形成了鲜明对比,后者使用禁令限制违反合同或剥夺所有权,以防止非法驱逐并执行政党规则。本说明考虑了私法补救措施在保护党员权利方面的弱点,以及对政党决定进行更常规司法审查的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Judicial intervention into political parties: Setka v Carroll [2019] VSC 571
ABSTRACT In Setka v Carroll [2019] VSC 571, the Supreme Court of Victoria rejected an attempt to use private causes of action and remedies to vindicate civil rights to participate in a political party. The decision stands in stark contrast to earlier English and Australian decisions, which have used injunctions restraining breaches of contract or the deprivation of proprietary interests to prevent wrongful expulsions and enforce political parties’ rules. This note considers the weaknesses of private law remedies in protecting party members’ rights, and the possibility of more conventional judicial review of party decisions.
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
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
×
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