Michael C. Tolley

Parliamentary Scrutiny of Rights in the United Kingdom: Assessing the Work of the Joint Committee on Human Rights

This article examines the work of the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) and assesses its effectiveness in safeguarding fundamental rights in the United Kingdom. In 2001, Parliament created the JCHR to scrutinize legislation for compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998 and the UKs international human rights commitments. Data on the impact of JCHR reports on the work of Parliament and courts are collected and used to evaluate the efficacy of parliamentary scrutiny committees devoted to human rights. Is the use of a human rights scrutiny committee an effective mechanism of rights review? Since the success of the ‘Commonwealth model of constitutionalism’ ultimately depends on the effectiveness of parliaments in safeguarding rights, the extent to which the JCHRs work influences the drafting of proposed bills; contributes to more informed parliamentary debate; and, ultimately, prevents bills with rights problems from becoming law, is likely to interest scholars and reformers alike.

Judicial Review of Agency Interpretation of Statutes: Deference Doctrines in Comparative Perspective

Examined in this article are the deference doctrines developed by courts in the United States, Canada, Britain, Australia and South Africa. Deference doctrines determine when and if courts are to defer to an agencys reasonable interpretation of the ambiguous terms of the statute that the agency administers. The study of deference doctrines in comparative perspective reveals much about the need for agency autonomy in the modern administrative state and the capacity of courts to maintain the delicate balance and remedy abuses of discretion. It also provides an opportunity to determine how well the leading theories of judicial decision making explain the variety of judicial responses to the common problem of deference to agency interpretation of statues.

Judicialization of Politics in Europe: Keeping Pace with Strasbourg

In Europes multilayered constitutional arrangements, the work of national courts is increasingly influenced by directives and regulations of the European Council and Commission and decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights or Strasbourg Court as it is generally identified. Examined in this article are the recent efforts by courts in Germany, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom to keep pace with developments in European human rights law, especially the decisions of the Strasbourg Court, dealing with asylum and immigration. By focusing on recent decisions dealing with asylum and immigration issues, this article reveals the variety of approaches taken by courts in Europe to harmonize national law with international human rights law and concludes that the decisions that contributed most to the expansion of judicial power in this domestic policy area were those invoking principles of European human rights law to bolster the protection of rights that were already part of the national constitutional tradition.

Courts of admiralty in colonial America : the Maryland experience, 1634-1776

In early Maryland the admiralty courts profoundly affected the daily lives of the settlers. This lively examination of the admiralty law system as it was transmitted from England to America. Appendices include summaries and analyses of nearly 150 cases, never collected before, and the transcription of the record of a classic maritime case. Published by Carolina Academic Press in association with the Maryland Historical Society.