Justiciability and Jurisdiction: Political Questions and the Scope of Judicial Review
Justiciability and Jurisdiction: Political Questions and the Scope of Judicial Review
Constitutional rights and freedoms, limiting the exercise of legislative and executive power, are unlikely to be of much practical value unless they can be judicially enforced. Although the interpretation of such rights must be duly sensitive to the legitimate demands of the collective welfare, and reasonable governmental determination of the public interest, their requirements should normally be ascertained by independent judges, appropriately detached both from immediate administrative pressures and prevailing public opinion on any particular issue. It is sometimes alleged, however, that certain matters are inherently unsuited to adjudication, either because judicial determination would usurp the proper democratic process, or because judicial qualifications or adversarial legal procedures are inadequate or inappropriate to the task. This chapter discusses political questions and the limits of justiciability, constitutional convention and political principle, and adversarial adjudication and the merits of ‘judicial restraint’.
Keywords: justiciability, political principle, constitutional convention, judicial restraint, adversarial adjudication
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .
