Talk:Administrative law

Judicial Review

This article is wholly inadequate, in my judgement.

In my judgement, it is a mistake to fuse the administrative law of America and the administrative law of "common law countries". And, further, it is a mistake to merely subsume the administrative law relating to the laws of England as a mere subsection of a larger article devoted to American administrative law.

I propose that the two be truncated. Further, that a fuller article be devoted to judicial review of administrative action as applied to England and Wales.

If I have the time, I will try my very best to do it.

[...]

I haven't got the time to make changes, but here are some points to note:

In English law, the doctrine of legitimate expectations is definitely applied, both as to expectations of a procedural and a substantive benefit. See P.Craig, Administrative Law 5th ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2004) for details. (there is now a 6th ed, september 2008)

In Canada, the courts determine a standard of review in applying a pragmatic and functional approach under which they can adopt one of three standards: patent unreasonableness, reasonableness simpliciter, or correctness. See the Pushpanathan and Baker cases. The existing article says 'patent unreasonableness' alone.

I also agree that a fuller article on England and Wales is appropriate.

Common Law

I've mostly given up editing on Wikipedia -- but I couldn't let "Anglo-American common law countries" pass. It's just "Common Law". We (the U.S.) didn't help invent it, any more than all the other common law countries (Canada, Australia, etc.; but not Scotland!) did.

This entire article is in bad shape. Administrative law in the United States only faintly resembles the practices described here. Amcfreely 05:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

In what sense? It seems to be a moderately accurate summary of American administrative law, though perhaps more information about the actual promulgation and real-world application of regulations in the United States could be added. --Coolcaesar 18:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking mostly about the general introductory paragraphs: "their decisions could be reviewed by a court of general jurisdiction under some principle of judicial review based upon due process," "when sitting in review of a decision, the Court will only look at the method in which the decision was arrived at, whereas in appeal the correctness of the decision itself will be under question," "in terms of ultra vires actions in the broad sense, a reviewing court may set aside an administrative decision if it...arbitrary and capricious under (U.S. Administrative Procedure Act and New York State law)." All three sentences are misleading and incorrect. Amcfreely 21:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to reply to such an old post, but I attempted to clarify the sentence "when sitting in review of a decision, the Court will only look at the method in which the decision was arrived at, whereas in appeal the correctness of the decision itself will be under question," by emphasizing the difference between an administrative appeal and judicial review. I'd like to note that I only wanted to clarify the point that seemed to be being made, not vouch for it. Agnosticaphid (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

France and Germany

"Administrative law is the body of law that arises from the activities of administrative agencies of government. Government agency action can include rulemaking, adjudication, or the enforcement of a specific regulatory agenda."

If I understand it right, it means that administrative law is (in comon law countries) the law created by administrative agencies. But in France - and probably also in countries like Germany - , droit administratif doesn't have this meaning: it refers to laws (created by the Parliament, the Government, or case-law) by which rule public services (and, to some extent, the the government) are bound. So I think we shouldn't address French administrative courts here just because these courts are interested in something whose name happens to be the literal translation of the English article title. Apokrif 17:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about removing civil law countries from this article, it seems like the natural place to look if you're from a common law country and want to learn more about this general topic as applied in civil law countries. I, for one, wouldn't know to look at "Administrative Court" unless it was linked here. But, maybe the introduction could be improved to emphasize the differences you point out. Agnosticaphid (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Germany

Constitutional law is not a subdivision of Administrative law...

...neither in English nor in German. Both constitutional and administrative law are subdivisions of public law.

So the phrase "The administrative law in Germany can be divided into three main parts, which are constitutional law, general administrative law and special administrative law." needs to be corrected, and the sub-section (does that word exist?) "1. Constitiutional law" must either be deleted or (preferably) be re-written into a sub-section "Constitional foundations of admistrative law", because those foundations are essential to German administrative law. If I find the time to do that myself, I might give it a try, but I can´t promise.--Kybing (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Unbalanced

The sections within "In civil law countries" are sadly unbalanced: a long section about US law, and nothing but a link for the other countries. I wondered about just copying the leads of the relevant articles, but perhaps someone with more expertise on law could do a better job of this. There is a tag dating back to 2015 identifying this section as failing to have a world-wide approach, but nothing has yet been done about it. PamD 07:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)