Edoardo Chiti, The Relationship between National Administrative Law and European .. Et c'est même sensible dans la Constitution et la Charte des droits . Abuse of power is one of classic concepts in administrative law. Regardless of some differences, the essence of the problem is similar to do anything (Même lorqu'elles ont le pouvoir de faire ce qu'elle veulent, elles ne doivent . which stemmed from the German case law and constitutional doctrine (Grundsatz der. secondly, the administrative-law relationship is analysed. . 3 3 1 The Constitutional Mandates of the South African Courts and Public Review in South African Administrative Law” and quotes the latter's description of.
Hence, on the whole, the correct legal statement of the actual condition of things is that sovereignty still resides in Parliament, i.
Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (LF ed.) - Online Library of Liberty
Each of the Dominions is a self-governing colony, i. Our subject raises two questions: First Question What is the difference between the relation of the Imperial Parliament to a self-governing colony, such, e.
Before attempting a direct answer to this inquiry it is well to point out that in two respects of considerable importance the relation of the Imperial Parliament 22 to the self-governing colonies, whether called Dominions or not, has in no respect changed since In the first place, the Imperial Parliament still claims inas it claimed inthe possession of absolute sovereignty throughout every part of the British Empire; and this claim, which certainly extends to every Dominion, would be admitted as sound legal doctrine by any court throughout the Empire which purported to act under Edition: The constitution indeed of a Dominion in general originates in and depends upon an Act, or Acts, of the Imperial Parliament; and these constitutional statutes are assuredly liable to be changed by the Imperial Parliament.
Parliament, in the second place, had long before practically admitted the truth of the doctrine in vain pressed upon his contemporaries by Burke, 23 when insisting upon the folly of the attempt made by the Parliament of England to exert as much absolute power in Massachusetts as in Middlesex, that a real limit to the exercise of sovereignty is imposed not by the laws of man but by the nature of things, and that it was vain for a parliamentary or any other sovereign to try to exert equal power throughout the whole of an immense Empire.
The completeness of this admission is shown by one noteworthy fact: A student may ask what is the good of insisting upon the absolute sovereignty of Parliament in relation to the Dominions when it is admitted that Parliament never gives, outside the United Kingdom, and probably never will give, full effect to this asserted and more or less fictitious omnipotence. The answer to this suggestion is that students who do not bear in mind the claim of Parliament to absolute sovereignty throughout the whole of the British Empire, will never understand the extent to which this sovereign power is on some occasions actually exerted outside the limits of the United Kingdom, nor, though this statement sounds paradoxical, will they understand the limits which, with the full assent, no less of English than of colonial statesmen, are in fact, as regards at any rate the Dominions, imposed upon the actual exercise of the theoretically limitless authority of Parliament.
It will be found further that even to the Dominions themselves there is at times some advantage in the admitted authority of the Imperial Parliament to legislate for the whole Empire. In the eyes, at any rate, of thinkers who share the moral convictions prevalent in most civilised states, it must seem a gain that the Imperial Parliament should have been able in to prohibit the existence of slavery in any country subject to the British Crown, and should be able to-day to forbid throughout the whole Empire the revival of the Slave Trade, or of judicial torture.
Let us now turn to the points wherein the relation of the Imperial Parliament to the self-governing colonies in differed from the existing relation of the Imperial Parliament to the Dominions in The relation of the Imperial Parliament in to a self-governing colony, e. The Imperial Parliament, under the guidance of English statesmen, certainly admitted in practice thirty years ago that a self-governing colony, such as New Zealand, ought to be allowed in local matters to legislate for itself.
Parliament did, however, occasionally legislate for New Zealand or any other self-governing colony. Thus the existing English Bankruptcy Act,as a matter of fact transferred, as it still transfers, to the trustee in bankruptcy the bankrupt's property, and Edition: So again the veto of the Crown was.
Thus colonial Bills for legalising the marriages between a man and his deceased wife's sister, or between a woman and her deceased husband's brother, were sometimes vetoed by the Crown, or in effect on the advice of ministers supported by the Imperial Parliament.
No doubt as time went on the unwillingness of English statesmen to interfere, by means of the royal veto or otherwise, with colonial legislation which affected only the internal government of a self-governing colony, increased. But such interference was not unknown.
There was further, inan appeal in every colony from the judgments of the Supreme Court thereof to the English Privy Council. And a British Government would in have felt itself at liberty to interfere with the executive action of a colonial Cabinet when such action was inconsistent with English ideas of justice.
It was also in a clear principle of English administration that English colonists should neither directly nor indirectly take part in negotiating treaties with foreign powers. Nor had either England or the self-governing colonies, thirty years ago, realised the general advantage of those conferences now becoming a regular part of English public life, at which English ministers and colonial ministers could confer upon questions of colonial policy, and could thus practically acknowledge the interest of the colonies in everything which concerned the welfare of the whole Empire.
Neither certainly did English statesmen in contemplate the possibility Edition: The relation of the Imperial Parliament in to a Dominion. Rule 1 In regard to any matter which directly affects Imperial interests the Imperial Parliament will though with constantly increasing caution pass laws which apply to a Dominion and otherwise exercise sovereign power in such a Dominion.
But this rule applies almost exclusively to matters which directly and indubitably affect Imperial interests. As long, in short, as the present state of things continues, the Imperial Parliament, to the extent I have laid down, still treats any Dominion as on matters of Imperial concern subordinate to the sovereignty of the Imperial Parliament. Take the following illustration of the extent of such internal independence: Parliament does not except at the wish of a Dominion legislate with respect to matters which merely concern the internal interests of such Dominion, e.
The power of the Crown, i. New Zealand, is now most sparingly exercised, and will hardly be used unless the Bill directly interferes with Imperial interests or is as regards the colonial legislature ultra vires.
Relationship between Constitutional Law and Administrative Law - ddttrh.info
Thus the Crown, or in other words a British ministry, will now not veto or disallow any Bill passed by the legislature of a Dominion on the ground that such Bill is indirectly opposed to the interests of the United Kingdom, or contradicts legal principles generally upheld in England, e. The British Government will not interfere with the executive action of the Government e. And the policy of England is in the main to withdraw the English Army from the Dominions and to encourage any Dominion to provide for its own defence and to raise Edition: The Imperial Government is now ready at the wish of a Dominion to exclude from its constitution, either partially or wholly, the right of appeal from the decision of the Supreme Court of such Dominion to the Privy Council.
These conferences, which were quite unthought of thirty years ago, and which did not receive their present form until the yearmark in a very striking manner a gradual and therefore the more important change in the relations between England and the self-governing colonies. The answer then to the question before us 36 as to the difference between the relation of England or in strictness of the Imperial Parliament to the self-governing colonies 37 in and her relation to the Dominions in can thus be summed up: At the former period England conceded to the self-governing colonies as much of independence as was necessary to give to such colonies the real management in their internal or local affairs.
But English statesmen at that Edition: In the colonial policy of England is to grant to every Dominion absolute, unfettered, complete local autonomy, 38 in so far as such perfect self-government by a Dominion does not clearly interfere with loyalty of the Dominion to the Empire. The two relations of England to the self-governing colonies—now called Dominions— are, it may be objected, simply one and the same relation described in somewhat different language.
The objection is plausible, but not sound. My effort has been to describe two different ways of looking at one and the same relation, and the results of this difference of view are of practical consequence.
In it was admitted, as it is to-day, that the self-governing colonies must have rights of self-government. But in the exercise of self-government on the part of any colony was regarded as subordinate to real control by the English Parliament and Crown of colonial legislation which might be opposed to English interests or to English ideals of political prudence.
In the self-government, e. The one limit to this complete independence in regard to local government is that it is confined to really local matters and does not trench upon loyalty to the Empire.
The independence of the Dominion, in short, means nowadays as much of independence as is compatible with each Dominion remaining part of the Empire. Second Question What are the changes of opinion which have led up to the altered relation between England and the Dominions?
Similarities and Differences An analysis on Administrative law and Constitutional law: Similarities and Differences on January 19, in Administrative Law A long time the similarity between constitutional law and administrative law had led to confusion between both because the latter was, until very recently, treated as an appendage of or annexure to the former.
One of the reasons therefor is that the two were fused for a long time because English scholars such as Austin and Maitland hesitated to see administrative law as a body of law distinct from constitutional law.
Thus, it was usual for textbooks on constitutional law and administrative law to contain much of constitutional law and little of administrative law. However, with the recognition of administrative law as an independent course of study, the situation has since improved as we now find books that are exclusively devoted to administrative law and, more importantly, administrative law is no longer tied to the apron string of constitutional law. Characteristics of Administrative Law There are certain characteristics which stand administrative law out.
An analysis on Administrative law and Constitutional law: Similarities and Differences
Some of them are itemized below: This is because the rules, regulations, byelaws, policies, etc, that administrative agencies make and implement are either to the benefit or detriment of most people on daily basis. The Constitution is the supreme document enacted to be a working document for governance.
Some of its features are as follows: Similarities between Administrative Law and Constitutional Law Administrative law and constitutional law are of common public law ancestry.
They are both about power and accountability — power of legislation and the accountability of those vested with the authority of enactment and enforcement.