Oversight of Administrative Justice Systems
Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Chapter › peer-review
Standard Standard
Oxford Handbook of Administrative Justice . ed. / Marc Hertogh; Richard Kirkham; Robert Thomas; Joe Tomlinson. Oxford: OUP, 2021.
Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Chapter › peer-review
HarvardHarvard
APA
CBE
MLA
VancouverVancouver
Author
RIS
TY - CHAP
T1 - Oversight of Administrative Justice Systems
AU - Nason, Sarah
PY - 2021/9
Y1 - 2021/9
N2 - Administrative justice systems have developed in light of social, cultural, political, and legal changes. Given this background, how can the collection of laws, institutions, procedures, and principles constituting administrative justice be subject to effective oversight? This chapter evaluates some of the bodies that have developed, at various points in time in various contexts, purportedly as a means to oversee all, or the majority of, particular administrative justice systems. It categorizes administrative justice oversight bodies into five main (non-exhaustive) types: 1) statutory whole network oversight bodies; 2) non-statutory whole network oversight; 3) academic-led oversight; 4) membership organizations; and 5) top administrative court oversight. The first four types are, or have been, most prevalent in common law systems, while the fifth tends to be more associated with civil law jurisdictions having a distinct hierarchy of administrative courts. This chapter focuses on the first four types of oversight. It explains and evaluates them against particular characteristics; the breadth of administrative justice; the relationship between oversight and reform; the influence of politics on oversight; the tasks of oversight bodies, their independence and funding; and evidencing their impacts. It briefly examines oversight activity by international bodies such as the Council of Europe and concludes with suggested characteristics for effective future oversight.
AB - Administrative justice systems have developed in light of social, cultural, political, and legal changes. Given this background, how can the collection of laws, institutions, procedures, and principles constituting administrative justice be subject to effective oversight? This chapter evaluates some of the bodies that have developed, at various points in time in various contexts, purportedly as a means to oversee all, or the majority of, particular administrative justice systems. It categorizes administrative justice oversight bodies into five main (non-exhaustive) types: 1) statutory whole network oversight bodies; 2) non-statutory whole network oversight; 3) academic-led oversight; 4) membership organizations; and 5) top administrative court oversight. The first four types are, or have been, most prevalent in common law systems, while the fifth tends to be more associated with civil law jurisdictions having a distinct hierarchy of administrative courts. This chapter focuses on the first four types of oversight. It explains and evaluates them against particular characteristics; the breadth of administrative justice; the relationship between oversight and reform; the influence of politics on oversight; the tasks of oversight bodies, their independence and funding; and evidencing their impacts. It briefly examines oversight activity by international bodies such as the Council of Europe and concludes with suggested characteristics for effective future oversight.
KW - oversight
KW - institutions
KW - reform
KW - systems
KW - networks
KW - evidence
KW - impact
M3 - Chapter
BT - Oxford Handbook of Administrative Justice
A2 - Hertogh, Marc
A2 - Kirkham, Richard
A2 - Thomas, Robert
A2 - Tomlinson, Joe
PB - Oxford: OUP
ER -