GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

X

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
Filter
  • Online Resource  (6)
  • Cambridge University Press (CUP)  (6)
Material
  • Online Resource  (6)
Publisher
  • Cambridge University Press (CUP)  (6)
Person/Organisation
Language
Years
FID
  • 1
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Re-examining judicial review of delegated legislation
    Cambridge University Press (CUP) ; 2023
    In:  Legal Studies
    Details
    In: Legal Studies, Cambridge University Press (CUP)
    Abstract: The usage of delegated legislation as a means of governance deserves significant attention, in view of the enormous impact that it is capable of having on the lives of citizens. While reforms to the process of parliamentary scrutiny are an important means of minimising the inappropriate usage of delegated legislation, this paper explores the possibility of drawing more fruitfully upon judicial review as an additional control mechanism. It undertakes a theoretical analysis of what makes delegated legislation distinct from primary legislation and other types of executive action for the purposes of judicial review, with a view towards identifying the proper normative orientation of judicial review of delegated legislation – upholding the moral requirements of delegation relationships and safeguarding democratic accountability and the rule of law. It then argues that existing grounds of review applied towards delegated legislation go some way towards but are inadequately directed at this normative orientation. Drawing inspiration from Irish and US jurisprudence, the paper critically evaluates several possible means of filling this doctrinal space, and concludes that the non-delegation doctrine and a rule of law-based ground of judicial review directed at exercises of delegated law-making power can supplement the law of judicial review of delegated legislation.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0261-3875 , 1748-121X
    URL: Article
    DOI: 10.1017/lst.2023.7
    Language: English
    Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)
    Publication Date: 2023
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2225699-4
    SSG: 2
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    Online Resource
  • 2
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Falsehoods, Foreign Interference, and Compelled Speech in Singapore
    Cambridge University Press (CUP) ; 2023
    In:  Asian Journal of Comparative Law Vol. 18, No. 2 ( 2023-08), p. 235-252
    Details
    In: Asian Journal of Comparative Law, Cambridge University Press (CUP), Vol. 18, No. 2 ( 2023-08), p. 235-252
    Abstract: Online misinformation endangers the infrastructure of fact essential to public discourse and presents an even greater threat where it is being utilised as a weapon by hostile state actors. In recognition of these dangers, Singapore has implemented legal measures to combat online misinformation, enacting in quick succession the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) and the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (FICA). These statutes open up novel frontiers of development for Singapore's free speech jurisprudence. Indeed, these statutes confer upon government authorities the power to compel the authors of certain material to display notices stating that the material contains falsehoods or originated from a hostile information campaign. Yet, should one accept that the constitutional right to freedom of speech extends to the freedom not to speak, the compulsion of such expressions may well be unconstitutional under Singapore's free speech guarantee. This article will study the theoretical justifications for a prohibition against compelled speech to evaluate whether Singapore free speech jurisprudence ought to recognise such a prohibition, propose a doctrinal framework to analyse compelled expressions by reference to US, UK, and Canadian jurisprudence, and critically assess how the POFMA and FICA would fare under such a doctrine.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2194-6078 , 1932-0205
    URL: Article
    DOI: 10.1017/asjcl.2023.9
    Language: English
    Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)
    Publication Date: 2023
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2263115-X
    SSG: 2
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    Online Resource
  • 3
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Form and Substance in Singapore Constitutional and Administrative Law
    Cambridge University Press (CUP) ; 2020
    In:  Asian Journal of Comparative Law Vol. 15, No. 2 ( 2020-12), p. 363-384
    Details
    In: Asian Journal of Comparative Law, Cambridge University Press (CUP), Vol. 15, No. 2 ( 2020-12), p. 363-384
    Abstract: While Atiyah's and Summers’ concepts of form and substance in the context of constitutional law are often associated with constitutional interpretation, they can also be fruitfully applied to other areas of constitutional and administrative law. The intent of this paper is to apply the concepts of form and substance to Singapore constitutional and administrative law to illustrate that beyond constitutional interpretation, formalism is an apt description for several key areas of constitutional and administrative law doctrine and reasoning in Singapore, even to the extent of being formalistic. This article will argue that formalism in legal reasoning obtains in several important constitutional and administrative law doctrines in Singapore – specifically in the grounds of judicial review, ouster clause doctrine, and the rules on standing. This article will also evaluate the implications of these findings for the development of constitutional and administrative law in Singapore.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2194-6078 , 1932-0205
    URL: Article
    DOI: 10.1017/asjcl.2021.1
    Language: English
    Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)
    Publication Date: 2020
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2263115-X
    SSG: 2
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    Online Resource
  • 4
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    The Relationship Between Constitutional Equality and Substantive Review
    Cambridge University Press (CUP) ; 2023
    In:  Asian Journal of Comparative Law
    Details
    In: Asian Journal of Comparative Law, Cambridge University Press (CUP)
    Abstract: General equality rights in written constitutions – rights stating the ideal of equality without specifying categories of impermissible differentiation – have often been effected through the idea of equality as rationality. Equality as rationality demands that differentiations between like entities have to be rationally justifiable. Such equality rights are applicable to legislation and executive action. This presents a prima facie overlap with substantive review in common law administrative law, since substantive review is also concerned about the rational justifiability of executive action. This raises three questions: (1) Are both sets of legal principles indeed similar? (2) Have courts managed to distinguish them in practice? (3) If not, then given that both sets of legal principles exist at different levels in the legal order, how can their similarity be rationalised? This article will study these questions, drawing upon Hong Kong and Singapore law as test cases.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2194-6078 , 1932-0205
    URL: Article
    DOI: 10.1017/asjcl.2023.23
    Language: English
    Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)
    Publication Date: 2023
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2263115-X
    SSG: 2
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    Online Resource
  • 5
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Constitutional equality and executive action – a comparative perspective to the comparator problem
    Cambridge University Press (CUP) ; 2023
    In:  Legal Studies Vol. 43, No. 1 ( 2023-03), p. 179-196
    Details
    In: Legal Studies, Cambridge University Press (CUP), Vol. 43, No. 1 ( 2023-03), p. 179-196
    Abstract: A general right to equality is a common feature of written constitutions around the world. Interesting questions arise when one seeks to apply such rights to discrete executive acts. The subject of such acts has necessarily been singled out from a multitude of possibilities for the purposes of the act. To determine whether a differentiation has occurred such that like cases have not been treated alike, to what or whom should this subject be compared? The question of how one selects the proper comparator becomes especially significant when one notes that whether the equal protection guarantee is triggered at all depends on the answer to this question. This paper will study how courts in Hong Kong and Singapore have addressed these difficulties. It argues that three categories of approaches can be discerned in these jurisdictions: class-focused, policy-focused, and justification-focused approaches. It critically evaluates each approach, argues in favour of a justification-focused approach to constitutional equal protection in the context of discrete executive acts, and explores the implications of such an approach for the proper relationship between constitutional equality and administrative law.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0261-3875 , 1748-121X
    URL: Article
    DOI: 10.1017/lst.2022.33
    Language: English
    Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)
    Publication Date: 2023
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2225699-4
    SSG: 2
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    Online Resource
  • 6
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Conceptualising A Role for The Common Law in Environmental Protection in Singapore
    Cambridge University Press (CUP) ; 2021
    In:  Asian Journal of Comparative Law Vol. 16, No. 2 ( 2021-12), p. 218-237
    Details
    In: Asian Journal of Comparative Law, Cambridge University Press (CUP), Vol. 16, No. 2 ( 2021-12), p. 218-237
    Abstract: In Singapore, the key institutions driving environmental protection are the legislature and the executive. The judiciary's role in environmental protection has thus far been relatively minor. By drawing upon environmental law theory and comparative analysis of other common law jurisdictions, this article explores avenues through which the common law can be engaged more meaningfully to further environmental protection in Singapore. A conceptualisation of environmental law as directed at furthering the rule of law by promoting carefully-considered and participatory environmental governance will be suggested as a fruitful way forward for thinking about the role of the common law in environmental protection. Drawing upon this theory, as well as the experience of other common law jurisdictions, the article proposes a set of concrete steps by which greater common law engagement with environmental protection in Singapore can be achieved.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2194-6078 , 1932-0205
    URL: Article
    DOI: 10.1017/asjcl.2021.16
    Language: English
    Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)
    Publication Date: 2021
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2263115-X
    SSG: 2
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
    Online Resource
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...