管辖权、违法性和过失:一个邪恶的三位一体

IF 0.1 Q4 LAW
R. Macdonald
{"title":"管辖权、违法性和过失:一个邪恶的三位一体","authors":"R. Macdonald","doi":"10.7202/1059311AR","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The relationship between fault and ultra vires is one of the most difficult aspects of the law of Crown Liability. It sets clearly into relief the policy conflicts which arise when private law risk allocation regimes (the adversarial adjudicative imposition of liability rules grounded in a concept of corrective justice) are invoked to police the functioning of public law risk allocation regimes (the allocation through various non-adjudicative procedures of the benefit and burden according to a variety of conceptions of distributive justice).\n The Crown Liability Act and article 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure both incorporate as against the Crown rules of private law delictual behaviour which were originally developed for regulating activity between private parties as such. They, therefore, compel courts to determine whether jurisdictional error per se constitutes fault.\n The history of twentieth century attempts to reconcile ultra vires and fault is a history of the judicial search for boundary criteria between realms of public and private law. These boundaries have been, among others, a good faith test, functional criteria such as judicial and legislative immunity or immunity for planning functions, the notion of breach of statutory duty, and so on. Each of these attempts has ultimately be repulsed by the desire of litigants to recover against the Crown on the widest possible basis. Modern theories of jurisdiction being so all-embracing and modern conceptions of fault being so comprehensive, the courts are constantly being asked to develop an absolute equation between fault and ultra vires.\n The paper concludes by exploring several options for harmonizing private law and public law risk allocation regimes. It recommends a restructuring of the Crown Liability Act so as (i) to permit recovery on a variety of no fault bases, (ii) to permit recovery even when intra vires acts have been undertaken (if these cause significant or disproportional damage) and (iii) to permit the immunization of certain governmental functions from private law liability even when the decisions in question have been taken in an ultra vires fashion.","PeriodicalId":42153,"journal":{"name":"Revue General de Droit","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Jurisdiction, Illegality and Fault: An Unholy Trinity\",\"authors\":\"R. Macdonald\",\"doi\":\"10.7202/1059311AR\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The relationship between fault and ultra vires is one of the most difficult aspects of the law of Crown Liability. It sets clearly into relief the policy conflicts which arise when private law risk allocation regimes (the adversarial adjudicative imposition of liability rules grounded in a concept of corrective justice) are invoked to police the functioning of public law risk allocation regimes (the allocation through various non-adjudicative procedures of the benefit and burden according to a variety of conceptions of distributive justice).\\n The Crown Liability Act and article 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure both incorporate as against the Crown rules of private law delictual behaviour which were originally developed for regulating activity between private parties as such. They, therefore, compel courts to determine whether jurisdictional error per se constitutes fault.\\n The history of twentieth century attempts to reconcile ultra vires and fault is a history of the judicial search for boundary criteria between realms of public and private law. These boundaries have been, among others, a good faith test, functional criteria such as judicial and legislative immunity or immunity for planning functions, the notion of breach of statutory duty, and so on. Each of these attempts has ultimately be repulsed by the desire of litigants to recover against the Crown on the widest possible basis. Modern theories of jurisdiction being so all-embracing and modern conceptions of fault being so comprehensive, the courts are constantly being asked to develop an absolute equation between fault and ultra vires.\\n The paper concludes by exploring several options for harmonizing private law and public law risk allocation regimes. It recommends a restructuring of the Crown Liability Act so as (i) to permit recovery on a variety of no fault bases, (ii) to permit recovery even when intra vires acts have been undertaken (if these cause significant or disproportional damage) and (iii) to permit the immunization of certain governmental functions from private law liability even when the decisions in question have been taken in an ultra vires fashion.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42153,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revue General de Droit\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revue General de Droit\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7202/1059311AR\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revue General de Droit","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7202/1059311AR","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

过错与越权之间的关系是刑事责任法中最困难的问题之一。它明确规定,当援引私法风险分配制度(基于纠正司法概念的对抗性裁决责任规则)来监督公法风险分配制度的运作时,会出现政策冲突(根据各种分配正义的概念,通过各种非裁决程序分配利益和负担)。《官方责任法》和《民事诉讼法》第94条都纳入了关于私法不法行为的官方规则,这些规则最初是为了规范私人当事人之间的活动而制定的。因此,它们迫使法院确定管辖权错误本身是否构成过错。二十世纪试图调和越权和过错的历史是一部在公法和私法领域之间寻找边界标准的司法史。这些界限包括诚信测试、司法和立法豁免或规划职能豁免等职能标准、违反法定义务的概念等。诉讼当事人希望在尽可能广泛的基础上向官方追偿,最终挫败了每一次尝试。现代管辖权理论如此包罗万象,现代过错概念如此全面,法院不断被要求在过错和越权之间建立一个绝对的等式。最后,本文探讨了协调私法和公法风险分配制度的几种选择。它建议对《官方责任法》进行重组,以便(i)允许在各种无过错的基础上进行追偿,(ii)即使发生了越权行为(如果这些行为造成重大或不成比例的损害),也允许追回;(iii)即使有关决定是以越权方式作出的,也允许某些政府职能免于承担私法责任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Jurisdiction, Illegality and Fault: An Unholy Trinity
The relationship between fault and ultra vires is one of the most difficult aspects of the law of Crown Liability. It sets clearly into relief the policy conflicts which arise when private law risk allocation regimes (the adversarial adjudicative imposition of liability rules grounded in a concept of corrective justice) are invoked to police the functioning of public law risk allocation regimes (the allocation through various non-adjudicative procedures of the benefit and burden according to a variety of conceptions of distributive justice). The Crown Liability Act and article 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure both incorporate as against the Crown rules of private law delictual behaviour which were originally developed for regulating activity between private parties as such. They, therefore, compel courts to determine whether jurisdictional error per se constitutes fault. The history of twentieth century attempts to reconcile ultra vires and fault is a history of the judicial search for boundary criteria between realms of public and private law. These boundaries have been, among others, a good faith test, functional criteria such as judicial and legislative immunity or immunity for planning functions, the notion of breach of statutory duty, and so on. Each of these attempts has ultimately be repulsed by the desire of litigants to recover against the Crown on the widest possible basis. Modern theories of jurisdiction being so all-embracing and modern conceptions of fault being so comprehensive, the courts are constantly being asked to develop an absolute equation between fault and ultra vires. The paper concludes by exploring several options for harmonizing private law and public law risk allocation regimes. It recommends a restructuring of the Crown Liability Act so as (i) to permit recovery on a variety of no fault bases, (ii) to permit recovery even when intra vires acts have been undertaken (if these cause significant or disproportional damage) and (iii) to permit the immunization of certain governmental functions from private law liability even when the decisions in question have been taken in an ultra vires fashion.
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
5
×
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