Academic literature on the topic 'Administrative tribunals'

Abstract The World Bank Administrative Tribunal has begun its second quarter-century with a jurisprudential flowering of extraordinary proportions. Mr. Hansen’s study, which builds on his earlier 25-year retrospective, comprehensively surveys the Tribunal’s numerous doctrinal developments during this time. In this article, which is part two of two, Mr. Hansen revisits two of the four subjects explored in his retrospective: (i) the role of general legal principles as a source of Tribunal law, particularly with respect to the Tribunal’s recent and extensive due process jurisprudence; and (ii) the role of external case law as a source of Tribunal law, including decisions from international courts, international administrative tribunals, international arbitral tribunals and national courts. Extensively footnoted, Mr. Hansen’s study is intended for both academics and practitioners specializing in international administrative law and comparative international jurisprudence.

This article compares several systems of administrative adjudication. In the U.S., adjudication is typically performed by the same agency that makes and enforces the rules. However, in Australia, almost all administrative adjudication is performed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal [AAT], a non-specialized adjudicating agency, and several other specialized tribunals that are independent of the enforcing agency. These tribunals (which evolved out of concerns about separation of powers) have achieved great legitimacy. In the U.K., recent legislation [the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act] merged numerous specialized tribunals into a single first-tier tribunal with much stronger guarantees of independence than previously existed. An upper tribunal hears appeals from the first tier and largely supplants judicial review. The article concludes by asking whether the U.S. could learn anything from the Australian and U.K. experience and suggests that a single tribunal to adjudicate federal benefits cases might be a significant improvement over the existing model.Cet article compare un certain nombre de systèmes de règlement judiciaire de différends dans le domaine administratif. Aux Etats-Unis, typiquement, le règlement de différends est effectué par la même agence qui établit les règles et qui les met en application. Toutefois, en Australie, presque tous ces règlements sont effectués par le Administrative Appeals Tribunal [AAT], une agence non-spécialisée de règlement de différends, ainsi qu‟un certain nombre d‟autres tribunaux spécialisés qui sont indépendants de l‟agence qui met les règles en application. Ces tribunaux (qui émanent de préoccupations au sujet de la séparation des pouvoirs) ont atteint un niveau élevé de légitimité. Au Royaume-Uni, une loi récente [la Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act] a fusionné plusieurs tribunaux spécialisés en un seul tribunal de première instance ayant des garanties d‟indépendance bien plus fortes qu‟auparavant. Un tribunal supérieur juge les appels des décisions du tribunal de première instance et supplante largement la révision judiciaire. L‟article se termine en posant la question à savoir si les Etats-Unis pourraient apprendre quelque chose de l‟expérience australienne et britannique et suggère qu‟un seul tribunal pour juger les cas de bénéfices fédéraux pourrait constituer une amélioration importante par rapport au modèle existant.

In the 30 years since the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was proclaimed, one of the most litigated issues has been the role of administrative tribunals in deciding Charter claims. Early Supreme Court jurisprudence suggested that only the provincial superior courts had the jurisdiction to decide Charter claims and remedy a Charter breach. Over time, and in concert with the expansion of the administrative state in Canada, the Supreme Court recognized that administrative tribunals could in fact decide Charter questions. However, the issue of whether they could remedy a Charter breach became bogged down by the test from Mills v. R.: tribunals and courts had to analyze the tribunal’s jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis by examining the remedy being sought, as opposed to analyzing jurisdiction on an institutional basis, which would examine the tribunal's statutory mandate and function.

Administrative Tribunal in Bangladesh is a specialized adjudicating body established in order to ensure prompt, effective, inexpensive, flexible, and expert adjudication as well as expeditious disposal of service disputes of civil servants by ousting the jurisdiction of ordinary courts on such matter. However, this paper tries to explore that the adjudicating mechanism of such Tribunals are affected by intricate legislation, non-compliance to the Constitutional mandate, deviation from equality principles, unavailability of a dynamic procedure as to the recruitment of personnel of expertise, non-existence of any established system of appointing panel advocate, a variety of the jurisdictional lacking and faults as well as functional and procedural defects. To explore challenges related to the Administrative Tribunals in Bangladesh, this paper attempts to examine whether the legal provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1980 and Rules framed thereunder are adequate for the proper and expeditious disposal of the service litigants' grievances through the critical analysis of these provisions compared to, especially, that of India and Pakistan as well as the empirical scrutiny of the practical scenario of such Tribunals in Bangladesh. This paper, in fine, concludes with the necessity for serious modifications of those legal provisions and tackling those challenges, and therefore puts forward the ways out.

This article explores the adaptation of design thinking to administrative justice. The human centred design perspective has been missing from most debates surrounding the design and reform of administrative tribunals in Canada. As a result, the author asserts that the administrative justice system in Canada at all levels of government (federal, provincial, municipal, and Indigenous) is generally fragmented, poorly coordinated, and under-resourced in relation to the needs of its users and has multiple barriers of entry. 
 This article is divided into two parts. The first part reviews the development of design thinking in the context of legal services and legal organizations. The second part explores the implications of this development for administrative justice, particularly in the context of the establishment of new tribunals. Several examples of tribunal reform are examined from a design thinking perspective. By way of conclusion, the author suggests the criteria that should be applied to evaluate the design of a new administrative tribunal.

In December 2009, the Ontario Legislative Assembly enacted the Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act, 2009 [ATAGAA]. This new legislation offers a unique approach to ensuring that adjudicative tribunals in the province are transparent, accountable and efficient in their operations while preserving their decision-making independence. This approach aims to bring the executive branch of government and tribunals together in achieving effective and accountable internal tribunal governance. Through the use of illustrative cases, the author argues, however, that the statute does not address many of the contemporary concerns about administrative independence and accountability that tribunals experience on the ground. She argues further that the legislation is inconsistent in its underlying commitment to the concept of accountability itself as it fails to contemplate the importance of government accountability to tribunals and overlooks opportunities to foster sustained internal cultures of accountability. Finally, the approach taken by the legislation must be channeled properly to avoid disintegrating from one of collaborative governance to one of command and control.En décembre 2009, l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario a adopté la Loi de 2009 sur la responsabilisation et la gouvernance des tribunaux décisionnels et les nominations à ces tribunaux. Cette nouvelle loi présente une approche tout à fait particulière pour assurer que les tribunaux décisionnels de la province sont transparents, tenus de rendre compte et efficaces dans leur fonctionnement tout en préservant leur indépendance décisionnelle. Cette approche vise à rapprocher l’autorité exécutive du gouvernement et les tribunaux pour en arriver à une gouvernance interne efficace et responsable des tribunaux. En utilisant des cas pour l’illustrer, l’auteure soutient, toutefois, que la loi n’aborde pas plusieurs des préoccupations contemporaines au sujet de l’indépendance administrative et l’obligation de rendre compte dont les tribunaux font l’expérience sur le terrain. Elle soutient de plus que la loi est inconsistante dans son engagement sous-jacent envers le concept lui-même de l’obligation de rendre compte puisqu’elle ne contemple pas l’importance de tenir le gouvernement responsable envers les tribunaux et néglige les occasions de favoriser des cultures internes soutenues de rendre compte. Finalement, l’approche que prend la loi doit être dirigée convenablement pour éviter de se désintégrer d’une approche de gouvernance collaborative en une de commandement et de contrôle.

Highlighting that the right to a fair trial in international law now forms an aspect of international administrative procedural law, I argue when international administrative tribunals administer justice to international civil servants, fair trial guarantees must be accorded. Particularly, in this paper I assess the two leading international administrative tribunals, the United Nations Dispute Tribunal and the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation, in terms of their compliance with fair trial standards. Focusing on the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice, I first show how what I call an international procedural law of fair trial has been developed and requires that basic due process guarantees must be accorded wen delivering international administrative justice. I then develop fair trial standards with greater nuance, especially focusing on the quality of independence and impartiality. Then, the paper engages in a detailed analysis of the leading international administrative tribunals in terms of compliance with fair trial standards, concluding that significant deficits exist. If a fair trial for international civil servants is to be guaranteed, significant structural reforms are necessary.

Evaluating the success of adjudicative tribunals is an important but elusive undertaking. Adjudicative tribunals are created by governments and given statutory authority by legislatures for a host of reasons. These reasons may and often do include legal aspects, policy aspects and partisan aspects. While such tribunals are increasingly being asked by governments to be accountable, too often this devolves into publishing statistics on their caseload, dispositions, budgets and staffing. We are interested in a different and more basic question – are these tribunals successful? How do we know, for example, whether the remedies ordered by a tribunal actually do advance the purposes for which it was created? Can the success of an adjudicative tribunal be subject to meaningful empirical validation? While issues of evaluation and accountability cut across national and jurisdictional boundaries, the authors argue that this type of question can only be addressed empirically, by actually looking to the practice of a particular board or boards, in the context of a particular statute or statutes, and in particular jurisdictions at particular times. Such accounts can and should form the basis for comparative study. Only through comparative study can the value and limitations of particular methodologies become apparent. This study takes as its case study the role of adjudicative tribunals in the health system. The authors draw primarily from Canadian tribunal experience, though examples from other jurisdictions are used to demonstrate the potential of empirical evaluation. The authors discuss the relative dearth of empirical study in administrative law and argue that it ought to be the focus of the discussion on accountability in administrative justice.Évaluer le succès de tribunaux qui tranchent des litiges est une entrepriseimportante mais difficile à effectuer. Les tribunaux qui tranchent des litigessont créés par des gouvernements et dotés de pouvoir légal par des législaturespour une multitude de raisons. Ces raisons peuvent inclure des aspects légaux,des aspects liés à des politiques et des aspects partisans ce qui est souvent le cas.Quoique les gouvernements demandent de plus en plus à de tels tribunaux de rendre compte, trop souvent, ceci se réduit à la publication de statistiques sur le nombre de cas traités, leurs dispositions, les budgets et le personnel. Une question différente et plus fondamentale nous intéresse – ces tribunaux réussissent-ils? Comment savons-nous, par exemple, si les recours ordonnés par un tribunal font en fait avancer les objectifs pour lesquels il a été créé? Le succès d’un tribunal qui tranche des litiges peut-il faire l’objet de validation empirique signifiante? Quoique les questions d’évaluation et du devoir de rendre compte traversent des frontières entre nations et champs de compétence, les auteurs soutiennent que ce genre de question ne peut être traité qu’empiriquement, en examinant en fait les pratiques d’un conseil ou de conseils particuliers, dans le contexte d’une loi ou de lois particulières et dans des sphères de compétence particulières à des moments particuliers. De tels comptes rendus peuvent et devraient constituer la base d’étude comparative. Seule l’étude comparative peut faire ressortir la valeur et les limites d’une méthodologie particulière. L’étude de cas choisie pour la présente étude est le rôle de tribunaux qui tranchent des litiges dans le système de santé. Les auteurs puisent surtout dans l’expérience de tribunaux canadiens, quoique des exemples tirés d’autres territoires de compétence soient utilisés pour démontrer le potentiel de l’évaluation empirique. Les auteurs discutent de la pénurie relative d’étude empirique dans le domaine du droit administratif et soutiennent que là devrait être le point central de la discussion du devoir de rendre compte dans le domaine de la justice administrative.

The last decade has seen numerous proposals to reform existing tribunal systems in jurisdictions throughout the common law world. Across the board, there have been proposals to adopt generalist tribunal models in preference to smaller, specialist tribunal systems, and to achieve these changes through the process of amalgamation. The most significant recent developments to occur in Australia have taken place in Victoria and NSW during the past five years. Legislators in these States have chosen to amalgamate a number of smaller, specialist tribunals into larger, generalist bodies. In 1997 the NSW Parliament passed legislation amalgamating a number of specialist tribunals to create the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT); comparable legislation was passed in Victoria in 1998 to create the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). There were concurrent attempts to implement similar reforms at federal level. In 1998 the Commonwealth government announced its intention to amalgamate four Commonwealth merits review tribunals to form one �super Tribunal� � the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART). The Bills containing these proposals were ultimately defeated in the Senate, however the Australian Government remains convinced of the benefits of amalgamation at federal level. Similar reforms have been proposed in Western Australia, Tasmania and the United Kingdom. This thesis argues that these reforms are taking place in the absence of data about their likely implications, and without a thorough understanding of the objectives that generalist versus specialist tribunal systems can realistically achieve. This ill-considered or �over-hasty� trend towards amalgamation raises a number of questions which have not previously been addressed in academic or policy-making circles. An obvious question is whether or not an amalgamated tribunal model is more effective than a series of smaller, specialised tribunals in delivering administrative justice, in other words, whether there is any net gain to be had from a government�s decision to amalgamate. The less explored, but equally important, question addressed in this thesis is how the process of amalgamation should be approached in order to realise the maximum potential benefits that an amalgamated tribunal can bring. That is, to ask what are the ingredients of an optimal amalgamation. This is not a question about whether government decisions to pursue amalgamation are intrinsically worthwhile or beneficial for stakeholders. Rather, it is about how government decisions to amalgamate should best be implemented. This thesis proposes a way of differentiating between good and bad amalgamations, that is grounded in theory and informed by experience to date. The proposed approach is to assess the effectiveness of amalgamation processes using relevant measures drawn from an analysis of organisational theory literature: � Legislation � the legislation establishing an amalgamated tribunal needs to ensure the tribunal will have appropriate independence, powers, processes, membership and structure. � Political commitment � those responsible for proposing and planning an amalgamation need to provide appropriate funding and support for the process and for the establishment of an autonomous, self-directed tribunal. � Organisational structure � the structures put in place need to be appropriate, integrated and flexible, and should promote cohesion and interaction. � Process and procedure � the processes and procedures adopted in an amalgamated tribunal need to capitalise upon the opportunities provided by amalgamation, as well as being appropriate, efficient and able to balance the needs of a range of stakeholders. � Organisational culture � an organisational culture which counters natural tendencies towards disjunction will assist members and staff to identify with a newly amalgamated tribunal and to implement initiatives that will improve its performance. � Leadership � effective leadership plays an important role in ensuring a smooth transition from specialist to amalgamated tribunal, and engendering commitment from members and staff. Broadly speaking, these factors fall into the four categories of law, context, organisation and people. It is argued that attention must be paid to all four of these ingredients in order to achieve optimal tribunal reform. The thesis tests this proposition by examining the three most advanced tribunal amalgamations so far, namely, the Commonwealth ART, the NSW ADT and VCAT in Victoria. It is argued that the fate of the Commonwealth ART proposal proves the importance of a solid, generally endorsed legislative foundation in creating a viable amalgamated tribunal. The importance of context, organisation and people is borne out by qualitative research into the amalgamation experiences in NSW and Victoria. The fact that the NSW and Victorian governments decided to pursue policies of amalgamation at the same time provided a unique opportunity to compare the success or otherwise of two concurrent attempts at amalgamation in different jurisdictions. This thesis finds that the unfavourable political context in NSW prevented the ADT from realising its potential. In contrast, the VCAT experience highlights the benefits of paying careful attention to the wide range of factors that can contribute to a successful amalgamation. Of most relevance are the initial scale of an amalgamation, the political �will� behind its implementation, the appointment of a core of full-time members, and the creation of an open institutional culture which facilitates the sharing of information. In short, the thesis concludes that the successful construction and consolidation of a tribunal post-amalgamation requires that the necessary ingredients of optimal tribunal reform � legislation, context, organisation and people � are thoughtfully addressed.

The last decade has seen numerous proposals to reform existing tribunal systems in jurisdictions throughout the common law world. Across the board, there have been proposals to adopt generalist tribunal models in preference to smaller, specialist tribunal systems, and to achieve these changes through the process of amalgamation. The most significant recent developments to occur in Australia have taken place in Victoria and NSW during the past five years. Legislators in these States have chosen to amalgamate a number of smaller, specialist tribunals into larger, generalist bodies. In 1997 the NSW Parliament passed legislation amalgamating a number of specialist tribunals to create the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT); comparable legislation was passed in Victoria in 1998 to create the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). There were concurrent attempts to implement similar reforms at federal level. In 1998 the Commonwealth government announced its intention to amalgamate four Commonwealth merits review tribunals to form one �super Tribunal� � the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART). The Bills containing these proposals were ultimately defeated in the Senate, however the Australian Government remains convinced of the benefits of amalgamation at federal level. Similar reforms have been proposed in Western Australia, Tasmania and the United Kingdom. This thesis argues that these reforms are taking place in the absence of data about their likely implications, and without a thorough understanding of the objectives that generalist versus specialist tribunal systems can realistically achieve. This ill-considered or �over-hasty� trend towards amalgamation raises a number of questions which have not previously been addressed in academic or policy-making circles. An obvious question is whether or not an amalgamated tribunal model is more effective than a series of smaller, specialised tribunals in delivering administrative justice, in other words, whether there is any net gain to be had from a government�s decision to amalgamate. The less explored, but equally important, question addressed in this thesis is how the process of amalgamation should be approached in order to realise the maximum potential benefits that an amalgamated tribunal can bring. That is, to ask what are the ingredients of an optimal amalgamation. This is not a question about whether government decisions to pursue amalgamation are intrinsically worthwhile or beneficial for stakeholders. Rather, it is about how government decisions to amalgamate should best be implemented. This thesis proposes a way of differentiating between good and bad amalgamations, that is grounded in theory and informed by experience to date. The proposed approach is to assess the effectiveness of amalgamation processes using relevant measures drawn from an analysis of organisational theory literature: � Legislation � the legislation establishing an amalgamated tribunal needs to ensure the tribunal will have appropriate independence, powers, processes, membership and structure. � Political commitment � those responsible for proposing and planning an amalgamation need to provide appropriate funding and support for the process and for the establishment of an autonomous, self-directed tribunal. � Organisational structure � the structures put in place need to be appropriate, integrated and flexible, and should promote cohesion and interaction. � Process and procedure � the processes and procedures adopted in an amalgamated tribunal need to capitalise upon the opportunities provided by amalgamation, as well as being appropriate, efficient and able to balance the needs of a range of stakeholders. � Organisational culture � an organisational culture which counters natural tendencies towards disjunction will assist members and staff to identify with a newly amalgamated tribunal and to implement initiatives that will improve its performance. � Leadership � effective leadership plays an important role in ensuring a smooth transition from specialist to amalgamated tribunal, and engendering commitment from members and staff. Broadly speaking, these factors fall into the four categories of law, context, organisation and people. It is argued that attention must be paid to all four of these ingredients in order to achieve optimal tribunal reform. The thesis tests this proposition by examining the three most advanced tribunal amalgamations so far, namely, the Commonwealth ART, the NSW ADT and VCAT in Victoria. It is argued that the fate of the Commonwealth ART proposal proves the importance of a solid, generally endorsed legislative foundation in creating a viable amalgamated tribunal. The importance of context, organisation and people is borne out by qualitative research into the amalgamation experiences in NSW and Victoria. The fact that the NSW and Victorian governments decided to pursue policies of amalgamation at the same time provided a unique opportunity to compare the success or otherwise of two concurrent attempts at amalgamation in different jurisdictions. This thesis finds that the unfavourable political context in NSW prevented the ADT from realising its potential. In contrast, the VCAT experience highlights the benefits of paying careful attention to the wide range of factors that can contribute to a successful amalgamation. Of most relevance are the initial scale of an amalgamation, the political �will� behind its implementation, the appointment of a core of full-time members, and the creation of an open institutional culture which facilitates the sharing of information. In short, the thesis concludes that the successful construction and consolidation of a tribunal post-amalgamation requires that the necessary ingredients of optimal tribunal reform � legislation, context, organisation and people � are thoughtfully addressed.

O presente trabalho propõe-se a discutir sobre os Tribunais Administrativos de Organizações Internacionais, sua dimensão jurídica no contexto da expansão do Direito Internacional contemporâneo, seus objetivos jurisdicionais, suas características específicas, seus procedimentos internos e seu conceito, a partir da análise dos fundamentos e elementos jurídicos que preenchem o conteúdo dos tribunais internacionais. Nesse sentido, o estudo remonta ao exame do vínculo existente entre as organizações internacionais, os órgãos de organizações internacionais, os funcionários internacionais que prestam serviços laborais às organizações internacionais e os Tribunais Administrativos. Por fim, será apresentado o novo sistema administrativo de solução de controvérsias da Organização das Nações Unidas, de modo a revelar o significado e as consequências que a sua reforma introduz para o futuro dos Tribunais Administrativos e para a evolução do Direito Internacional na proteção dos indivíduos.<br>The following essay intends to discuss the International Administrative Tribunals of International Organizations, their legal dimension in the context of contemporary International Law expansion, its jurisdictional goals, their detailed characteristics, their internal procedures and its concept, by analyzing the reasons and legal aspects that fulfill the content of the international tribunals. To this end, the study relies on the examination of the existing connection between international organizations, the organs of international organizations, the international officials who render labor services to international organizations and the Administrative Tribunals. Finally, an approach in the new administrative dispute resolution system of the United Nations will be done, aiming to reveal the meaning and the consequences that the reform introduces to the future of the Administrative Tribunals and to the evolution of the International Law on the protection of individuals.

Thesis (LLM )--Stellenbosch University, 2011.<br>ENGLISH ABSTRACT: In the field of administrative law, the judiciary has traditionally exercised control over the administrative actions of the executive through judicial review. However, judicial review is neither the most effective nor the most efficient primary control mechanism for systemic administrative improvement. In a country faced with a task of =transformative constitutionalism‘, and hindered with scarce resources, there is good cause to limit judicial intervention as the first response to administrative disputes. The major theme of this thesis is to investigate the feasibility of administrative tribunal reform in South Africa, using two other commonwealth countries, Australia and England, as a basis for comparison. Australia and England have been chosen for comparison because they share similar administrative law traditions and they can provide working models of coherent tribunal structures. The Australian tribunal system is well-established and consists of tribunals which fall under the control of the executive, while tribunals in England have recently undergone a significant transformation, and are now part of the independent judiciary. The South African government currently spends, indeed wastes, a significant amount of money on administrative law litigation. Due to the limitations of judicial review, even after the high costs of litigation and the long duration of court proceedings, the results achieved may still be unsatisfactory. Furthermore, judicial review is unsuited to giving effect to systemic administrative change and the improvement of initial decision-making. Australia and England have begun to move away from the traditional court model for the resolution of administrative disputes. Both have indicated a preference for the important role of tribunals in the administration of disputes. Tribunals have been shown to offer the advantage of being speedier, cheaper, more efficient, more participatory and more accessible than traditional courts, which contributes to tribunals being a more available resource for lay people or people without sophisticated legal knowledge, and provides wider access to remedies than courts. The English and Australian models indicate a few important trends which need to be applied universally to ensure a sustained tribunal reform and a system which provides a higher level of administrative redress than the over-burdened and institutionally inept courts currently do. These include co-operation among government departments and tribunals; open and accountable systemic change; the need for supervision and evaluation of the whole of administrative law by an independent and competent body; and ultimately a focus on the needs of users of state services. At the same time, there are arguments against administrative tribunal reform. These include the costs of reform; the ways to establish tribunals; and the level of independence shown by the tribunals. These arguments are especially relevant in the South African context, where the government faces huge social problems and a scarcity of resources. However, after an analysis of the valuable characteristics of tribunals and the role that they serve in the day to day administration of justice, it is difficult to see how these objections to tribunals can outweigh their potential importance in the administrative justice system. The need for sustained systematic reform in South Africa is one that cannot be ignored. Tribunals offer a valuable alternative to judicial review for the resolution of administrative disputes. Furthermore, the tribunal systems of Australia and England demonstrate how the effective creation and continued use of comprehensive tribunal structures contributes firstly to cost reduction and secondly to ease the administrative burden on courts who are not suited to cure large-scale administrative error.<br>AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: In die administratiefreg oefen die regsprekende gesag tradisioneel beheer uit oor die uitvoerende gesag deur middel van geregtelike hersiening. Geregtelike hersiening is egter nie die mees doeltreffende of effektiewe primêre beheermeganisme om sistemiese administratiewe verbetering teweeg te bring nie. In 'n land met die uitdagings van 'transformatiewe konstitusionalisme‘ en skaars hulpbronne, kan 'n goeie argument gevoer word dat geregtelike inmenging as die eerste antwoord op administratiewe dispute beperk moet word. Die deurlopende tema van hierdie tesis is 'n ondersoek na die lewensvatbaarheid van hervorming van administratiewe tribunale in Suid-Afrika, in vergelyking met die posisie in Australië en Engeland, waarvan beide ook, tesame met Suid-Afrika, deel vorm van die Statebond. Hierdie lande is gekies vir regsvergelykende studie aangesien hulle 'n administratiefregtelike tradisie met Suid-Afrika deel en beide werkende modelle van duidelike tribunale strukture daarstel. Die Australiese tribunale stelsel is goed gevestig en bestaan uit tribunale onder die beheer van die uitvoerende gesag, terwyl die tribunale stelsel in Engeland onlangs 'n beduidende hervorming ondergaan het en nou deel van die onafhanklike regsprekende gesag is. Die Suid-Afrikaanse regering mors aansienlike hoeveelhede geld op administratiefregtelike litigasie. Selfs na hoë koste en lang vertragings van litigasie mag die resultate steeds onbevredigend wees as gevolg van die beperkings inherent aan geregtelike hersiening. Tesame met hierdie oorwegings is geregtelike hersiening ook nie gerig op sistemiese administratiewe verandering en verbetering van aanvanklike besluitneming nie. Australië en Engeland het onlangs begin wegbeweeg van die tradisionele hof-gebaseerde model vir die oplossing van administratiewe dispute. Beide toon 'n voorkeur vir die belangrike rol wat tribunale in die administrasie van dispute kan speel Tribunale bied die bewese voordele om vinniger, goedkoper, meer doeltreffend, meer deelnemend en meer toeganklik te wees as tradisionele howe, sodat tribunale 'n meer beskikbare hulpbron is vir leke, oftewel, persone sonder gesofistikeerde regskennis en dus beter toegang tot remedies as tradisionele howe verskaf. Die Engelse en Australiese modelle dui op enkele belangrike tendense wat universeel toegepas moet word om volgehoue tribunale hervorming te verseker en om =n stelsel te skep wat 'n hoër vlak van administratiewe geregtigheid daarstel as wat oorlaaide en institusioneel onbekwame howe kan. Dit verwys bepaald na samewerking tussen staatsdepartemente en tibunale; deursigtige en verantwoordbare sistemiese veranderinge; die behoefte aan toesighouding en evaluasie van die hele administratiefreg deur 'n onafhanklike, bevoegde liggaam; en uiteindelik 'n fokus op die behoeftes van die gebruikers van staatsdienste. Daar is egter terselfdertyd ook argumente teen administratiewe tribunale hervorming. Hierdie argumente sluit in die koste van hervorming; die wyses waarop tribunale gevestig word; en die vlak van onafhanklikheid voorgehou deur tribunale. Hierdie argumente is veral relevant in die Suid-Afrikaanse konteks waar die regering voor groot sosiale probleme te staan kom en daarby ingesluit, 'n tekort aan hulpbronne ook moet hanteer. Daarenteen is dit moeilik om in te sien hoe enige teenkanting en teenargumente met betrekking tot die vestiging van administratiewe tribunale swaarder kan weeg as die potensiële belang van sulke tribunale in die administratiewe geregtigheidstelsel, veral nadat 'n analise van die waardevolle karaktereienskappe van tribunale en die rol wat hulle speel in die dag-tot-dag administrasie van geregtigheid onderneem is. Die behoefte aan volhoubare sistemiese hervorming in Suid-Afrika kan nie geïgnoreer word nie. Tribunale bied 'n waardevolle alternatief tot geregtelike hersiening met die oog op die oplossing van administratiewe dispute. Tesame hiermee demonstreer die tribunale stelsels in Australië en Engeland hoe die doeltreffende vestiging en deurlopende gebruik van omvattende tribunale bydra, eerstens om kostes verbonde aan die oplossing van administratiewe dispute te verlaag en tweedens, om die administratiewe las op die howe, wat nie aangelê is daarvoor om grootskaalse administratiewe foute reg te stel nie, te verlig.

Some form of administrative review of executive action is accepted in the common law world for the reason that it serves certain basic values and goals. This study draws on political, legal and management theory in considering the values that underlie administrative review. It is primarily concerned with the role of tribunal review. A full range of values are considered, including fairness, justice, consistency, rationality, dignity, respect, accessibility, equity, efficiency and economy. Some are seen as fundamental to the administrative review system while others have different purposes. There is general agreement on many of the values and goals of administrative review. In their practical application however, values compete, overlap and evolve in accordance with economic, social, political and legal change. There are value tensions in, for instance, the role of independent tribunals as a check on the power of the executive while they are also within the executive, in the extent of the obligation on administrative tribunals to apply government policy and in the setting of proper limits of judicial review. There is continuing tension in demands for individual dignity and rights to fair treatment on the one hand and notions of the 'public interest' on the other. This thesis argues that the provision of tribunal review of administrative decisions is increasingly ideologically driven and focussed on 'functional' or 'management' values. At times these have trumped other values in decisions about entitlements to procedural fairness, access to review, effectiveness in public administration and the achievement of the 'correct and preferable' decision in the instant case. The focus of this thesis is a case study of migration decision-making. The importance of this area of study is evident in the potentially devastating consequences that migration decisions can have for individuals and families. In the context of Australia's history of inadequate and racially based migration policies, independent administrative review provides security against arbitrariness and discrimination in decision-making. An analysis of administrative review of decisions made under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) by the Migration Review Tribunal, and its predecessor the Immigration Review Tribunal, illustrates the claim that values, in their application, have real, practical and local importance. Issues of tribunal independence and accountability, the normative goal of review and procedural justice are considered in depth. It is argued that where compromises are made in administrative review, underlying values should be revealed so that their practical consequences may be better understood. The need to articulate and analyze these issues has never been greater. The Australian administrative review system is in a period of change analogous to that of the introduction of the 'new' administrative law in the 1970s. If tribunals are to continue to play an effective role then it is important to think clearly about how they can, in practice, embody the right mix of administrative law values.

This thesis has four main objectives; a) to provide an understanding of Legal Aid Appeals Tribunals, from a description of individual cases and the activities that occur therein, focusing in the main on those at which an appellant and/or their representative is present; b) to explore the use of documentation in the tribunal practices of tribunal panel members, legal aid clerks, appellants and their representatives; c) to explore the possibilities that post-analytic ethnomethodology as the adopted research methodology allows, and to clarify what this radical research 'programme' entails; and d) taking legal positivism as an epistopic to explore its possible ethnomethodological respecification in light of the descriptions of practice in legal aid tribunals. Although this thesis explores the possibility of post-analytic descriptions it is not a theoretical investigation into post-analytic ethnomethodology, but an empirical investigation of phenomena of legal aid tribunals which allows an exploration of the practical application of post-analytic ethnomethodology. Nevertheless, some clarification is attempted of just what a post-analytic ethnomethodology may entail. Used in conjunction with the description of the use of texts in legal tribunals, the investigation of epistopics, though not a common research practice does here help develop our understanding of the situated nature of legal practical, legal decision making, and legal objectivity. In a wider sense this approach highlights an argument made throughout this research, that texts are both significant and researchable as they are utilised in everyday practices, and do not have to be research solely with reference to an isolated reader and an isolated content.

Book Summary: Offering a unique resource for students, scholars, and citizens, this work fully explains all of the 21 enumerated powers of the U.S. Congress, from the "power of the purse" to the power to declare war. • Presents comprehensive coverage of all congressional powers through authoritative essays by recognized experts • Enables readers to connect the long-ago goals and perspectives of the Founding Fathers to current issues and controversies • Facilitates a fully contextualized understanding of the legislative power of Congress―and the extent and limitations of leverage that it can wield on domestic and foreign policy • Provides an accessible gateway to further, more detailed research of each of the individual congressional powers • Includes appendices containing the full texts of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union and the Constitution of the United States

This chapter deals with statutory tribunals, the growth of which mirrors the dramatic expansion of the state itself. It first explains what tribunals are and whether they are a good thing before discussing two important turning points in the development of tribunals: the Franks Report, published in 1957, and the Leggatt Review, published in 2001. It then considers the independence of tribunals, focusing on their judicial leadership as well as tribunal appointments. It also examines some of the key issues and themes which arise from tribunal procedure, paying attention to formality, representation, and the style of tribunal proceedings. The chapter concludes with an analysis of the structure of the tribunals system and its relationship with the courts, with particular emphasis on the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) and the Upper Tribunal (UT), appeals against tribunal decisions, and judicial review by and of the UT.

Panels, committees, tribunals, referees, adjudicators, commissioners, and other public authorities decide many thousands of disputes each year over (for example) entitlement to benefits, or tax liability, or political asylum, or the detention of a patient in a secure hospital. The massive array of agencies reflects the great variety of benefits and burdens that twenty-first-century government assigns to people. The array had no overall organization until 2007, when Parliament transformed it into a complex system. This chapter explains the benefits of integrating these decision-making agencies in the new system. The law needs to tailor their structure, processes, and decision-making techniques to the variety of purposes they serve. And the law needs to achieve proportionate process, by reconciling competing interests in legalism and informality in tribunal processes.

Panels, committees, tribunals, referees, adjudicators, commissioners, and other public authorities decide many thousands of disputes each year over (for example) entitlement to benefits, or tax liability, or political asylum, or the detention of a patient in a secure hospital. The massive array of agencies reflects the great variety of benefits and burdens that twenty-first-century government assigns to people. The array had no overall organization until 2007, when Parliament transformed it into a complex system. This chapter explains the benefits of integrating these decision-making agencies in the new system. The law needs to tailor their structure, processes, and decision-making techniques to the variety of purposes they serve. And the law needs to achieve proportionate process by reconciling competing interests in legalism and informality in tribunal processes.

This chapter begins by distinguishing between tribunals and inquiries. A tribunal is a permanent body that sits periodically, while an inquiry is something which is established on an ad hoc basis. Tribunals are empowered to make decisions that are binding on those parties subject to their jurisdiction; inquiries generally do not have formal decision-making powers. Tribunals are concerned with matters of fact and law, whereas inquiries are concerned with wider policy issues. The discussion then turns to the reform of the tribunal system; the former Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council; the origins of ombudsmen; the Parliamentary Commissioner; ombudsmen of devolved institutions; the Health Service Commissioner; the Local Government Commissioners; ombudsmen and the courts; and proposals for a unified Public Service Ombudsman service.

O isolamento social imposto pela pandemia de COVID-19 exigiu mudanças estruturais e instrumentais nos diversos âmbitos de trabalho. Os tribunais judiciários mantiveram suas atuações de forma contínua, lastreados pelas possibilidades trazidas pelas novas tecnologias de informação e comunicação. Dentre os atores dessas instituições, os gestores de vara judiciária tiveram grande desafio de ajustar sua função de gestão ao sistema híbrido de trabalho. A partir da Análise Ergonômica do Trabalho e da autoconfrontação, o serviço de saúde ocupacional de um tribunal foi capaz de conhecer as tarefas executadas, os riscos atribuídos a elas e as estratégias desenvolvidas pelos secretários de vara. Incluem-se entre as tarefas observadas dos secretários: aspectos administrativos e gestionários, atividades jurídicas processuais e comunicação e atendimento da unidade aos públicos interno e externo. A multiplicidade de tarefas dessa função foi evidenciada como gerador de custos pessoais, modulado pelas escolhas e estratégias assumidas por cada trabalhador. Percebemos que as formas de uso das diversas ferramentas de comunicação pode ser a chave para um melhor gerenciamento do tempo e das demandas apresentadas no cotidiano desses trabalhadores.

O oitavo número da série “Cadernos do Cade” , aborda entre suas propostas, a de compilar trajetórias metodológicas adotadas pelo Tribunal do Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (Cade), no correr dos anos, sobre a análise econômica do setor de cimento.