{"title":"司法激进主义,移民和独生子女案","authors":"K. Betts","doi":"10.4225/03/590BFF435E9AC","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Changes to administrative law in Australia have increased the access of non-residents to Australia’s legal system. Governments have recently sought to limit the impact of this access by restricting the courts’ decision-making freedom. The recent High Court’s judgment on a refugee claim based on China’s one-child family policy illustrates the dilemmas involved. Copyright. Monash University and the author/s","PeriodicalId":85256,"journal":{"name":"People and place","volume":"5 1","pages":"19-28"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Judicial activism, immigration and the one-child case\",\"authors\":\"K. Betts\",\"doi\":\"10.4225/03/590BFF435E9AC\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Changes to administrative law in Australia have increased the access of non-residents to Australia’s legal system. Governments have recently sought to limit the impact of this access by restricting the courts’ decision-making freedom. The recent High Court’s judgment on a refugee claim based on China’s one-child family policy illustrates the dilemmas involved. Copyright. Monash University and the author/s\",\"PeriodicalId\":85256,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"People and place\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"19-28\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1997-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"People and place\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4225/03/590BFF435E9AC\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"People and place","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4225/03/590BFF435E9AC","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Judicial activism, immigration and the one-child case
Changes to administrative law in Australia have increased the access of non-residents to Australia’s legal system. Governments have recently sought to limit the impact of this access by restricting the courts’ decision-making freedom. The recent High Court’s judgment on a refugee claim based on China’s one-child family policy illustrates the dilemmas involved. Copyright. Monash University and the author/s