“明显无合理根据”检验的问题

Q3 Social Sciences
Jed Meers
{"title":"“明显无合理根据”检验的问题","authors":"Jed Meers","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3677184","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Examines, following the Supreme Court ruling in R. (on the application of DA) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the use of the “manifestly without reasonable foundation” test in domestic judicial review challenges. The application of this benchmark in a series of human rights based challenges to social welfare reforms – such as the high profile “bedroom tax” and “benefit cap” policies – has been pivotal to their outcome. This paper argues that the application of the test is problematic as it is a formulation derived from the margin of appreciation doctrine and does not transpose to domestic application. In the alternative – even if it is the correct test to apply in some circumstances – it is to be applied far more flexibly than currently and that a “very weighty reasons” benchmark applies for some classes of discrimination.","PeriodicalId":39542,"journal":{"name":"Social Security Bulletin","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Problems With the ‘Manifestly Without Reasonable Foundation’ Test\",\"authors\":\"Jed Meers\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3677184\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Examines, following the Supreme Court ruling in R. (on the application of DA) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the use of the “manifestly without reasonable foundation” test in domestic judicial review challenges. The application of this benchmark in a series of human rights based challenges to social welfare reforms – such as the high profile “bedroom tax” and “benefit cap” policies – has been pivotal to their outcome. This paper argues that the application of the test is problematic as it is a formulation derived from the margin of appreciation doctrine and does not transpose to domestic application. In the alternative – even if it is the correct test to apply in some circumstances – it is to be applied far more flexibly than currently and that a “very weighty reasons” benchmark applies for some classes of discrimination.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39542,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Security Bulletin\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Security Bulletin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3677184\",\"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":"Social Security Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3677184","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: 3

摘要

根据最高法院在R.(关于DA的适用)诉工作和养老金国务秘书一案中作出的裁决,审查在国内司法审查挑战中使用“明显没有合理根据”检验的情况。在一系列针对社会福利改革的基于人权的挑战中——比如备受瞩目的“卧室税”和“福利上限”政策——这一基准的应用,对改革的结果至关重要。本文认为,该标准的适用是有问题的,因为它是一种源自升值幅度原则的提法,并没有转用于国内应用。在另一种情况下——即使它是在某些情况下适用的正确测试——它的应用要比目前灵活得多,而且“非常重要的理由”基准适用于某些类别的歧视。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Problems With the ‘Manifestly Without Reasonable Foundation’ Test
Examines, following the Supreme Court ruling in R. (on the application of DA) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the use of the “manifestly without reasonable foundation” test in domestic judicial review challenges. The application of this benchmark in a series of human rights based challenges to social welfare reforms – such as the high profile “bedroom tax” and “benefit cap” policies – has been pivotal to their outcome. This paper argues that the application of the test is problematic as it is a formulation derived from the margin of appreciation doctrine and does not transpose to domestic application. In the alternative – even if it is the correct test to apply in some circumstances – it is to be applied far more flexibly than currently and that a “very weighty reasons” benchmark applies for some classes of discrimination.
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
Social Security Bulletin
Social Security Bulletin Social Sciences-Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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