Political Purposes, Anti-entrenchment and Judicial Protection of the Democratic Process
The legality of decisions made for political purposes is a recurring issue in administrative law. In this article, it will be argued that generalisations should not be made about ‘political’ decisions as a single category. Instead, there are different types of political consideration, which raise di...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Oxford journal of legal studies 2022-05, Vol.42 (2), p.383-410 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 410 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 383 |
container_title | Oxford journal of legal studies |
container_volume | 42 |
creator | Rowbottom, Jacob |
description | The legality of decisions made for political purposes is a recurring issue in administrative law. In this article, it will be argued that generalisations should not be made about ‘political’ decisions as a single category. Instead, there are different types of political consideration, which raise different issues when assessing the legality of a decision. This article singles out a particular type of political decision for condemnation: decisions made to gain a political advantage by deliberately changing the systems of democratic accountability. Examples include the engineering of the electoral system to produce favourable results, the use of public power to punish critics and the use of public resources to publish partisan propaganda. The article will argue that the legality of such political decisions should not be assessed solely within the ordinary administrative law framework, but under a constitutional principle of anti-entrenchment and process protection. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1093/ojls/gqab037 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>crossref</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1093_ojls_gqab037</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>10_1093_ojls_gqab037</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c230t-d04a80eb4bdc8d8efaf9a0c3470a138db511929fc5efda442ec36c34d12a9fe33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotkMtOwzAURC0EEqGw4wP8ATW9jp3XsipQQJXoAsQycuxr6iqJi-0u-Hsa0dWMNKOzOITcc3jg0IiF3_dx8f2jOhDVBcm4LCUTdQ6XJAMuBSsLENfkJsY9ABRVITPytfW9S06rnm6P4eAjxjldjskxHFPAUe-GU6FqNPTtaJx20zH4hDo5P1JvadohfcTB66BOnGnUGOMtubKqj3h3zhn5fH76WL2wzfv6dbXcMJ0LSMyAVDVgJzuja1OjVbZRoIWsQHFRm67gvMkbqwu0RkmZoxblaTY8V41FIWZk_s_VwccY0LaH4AYVflsO7SSlnaS0ZyniD3LFWSQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Political Purposes, Anti-entrenchment and Judicial Protection of the Democratic Process</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>Business Source Complete</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Rowbottom, Jacob</creator><creatorcontrib>Rowbottom, Jacob</creatorcontrib><description>The legality of decisions made for political purposes is a recurring issue in administrative law. In this article, it will be argued that generalisations should not be made about ‘political’ decisions as a single category. Instead, there are different types of political consideration, which raise different issues when assessing the legality of a decision. This article singles out a particular type of political decision for condemnation: decisions made to gain a political advantage by deliberately changing the systems of democratic accountability. Examples include the engineering of the electoral system to produce favourable results, the use of public power to punish critics and the use of public resources to publish partisan propaganda. The article will argue that the legality of such political decisions should not be assessed solely within the ordinary administrative law framework, but under a constitutional principle of anti-entrenchment and process protection.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0143-6503</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1464-3820</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/ojls/gqab037</identifier><language>eng</language><ispartof>Oxford journal of legal studies, 2022-05, Vol.42 (2), p.383-410</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rowbottom, Jacob</creatorcontrib><title>Political Purposes, Anti-entrenchment and Judicial Protection of the Democratic Process</title><title>Oxford journal of legal studies</title><description>The legality of decisions made for political purposes is a recurring issue in administrative law. In this article, it will be argued that generalisations should not be made about ‘political’ decisions as a single category. Instead, there are different types of political consideration, which raise different issues when assessing the legality of a decision. This article singles out a particular type of political decision for condemnation: decisions made to gain a political advantage by deliberately changing the systems of democratic accountability. Examples include the engineering of the electoral system to produce favourable results, the use of public power to punish critics and the use of public resources to publish partisan propaganda. The article will argue that the legality of such political decisions should not be assessed solely within the ordinary administrative law framework, but under a constitutional principle of anti-entrenchment and process protection.</description><issn>0143-6503</issn><issn>1464-3820</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNotkMtOwzAURC0EEqGw4wP8ATW9jp3XsipQQJXoAsQycuxr6iqJi-0u-Hsa0dWMNKOzOITcc3jg0IiF3_dx8f2jOhDVBcm4LCUTdQ6XJAMuBSsLENfkJsY9ABRVITPytfW9S06rnm6P4eAjxjldjskxHFPAUe-GU6FqNPTtaJx20zH4hDo5P1JvadohfcTB66BOnGnUGOMtubKqj3h3zhn5fH76WL2wzfv6dbXcMJ0LSMyAVDVgJzuja1OjVbZRoIWsQHFRm67gvMkbqwu0RkmZoxblaTY8V41FIWZk_s_VwccY0LaH4AYVflsO7SSlnaS0ZyniD3LFWSQ</recordid><startdate>20220523</startdate><enddate>20220523</enddate><creator>Rowbottom, Jacob</creator><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20220523</creationdate><title>Political Purposes, Anti-entrenchment and Judicial Protection of the Democratic Process</title><author>Rowbottom, Jacob</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c230t-d04a80eb4bdc8d8efaf9a0c3470a138db511929fc5efda442ec36c34d12a9fe33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rowbottom, Jacob</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Oxford journal of legal studies</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rowbottom, Jacob</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Political Purposes, Anti-entrenchment and Judicial Protection of the Democratic Process</atitle><jtitle>Oxford journal of legal studies</jtitle><date>2022-05-23</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>42</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>383</spage><epage>410</epage><pages>383-410</pages><issn>0143-6503</issn><eissn>1464-3820</eissn><abstract>The legality of decisions made for political purposes is a recurring issue in administrative law. In this article, it will be argued that generalisations should not be made about ‘political’ decisions as a single category. Instead, there are different types of political consideration, which raise different issues when assessing the legality of a decision. This article singles out a particular type of political decision for condemnation: decisions made to gain a political advantage by deliberately changing the systems of democratic accountability. Examples include the engineering of the electoral system to produce favourable results, the use of public power to punish critics and the use of public resources to publish partisan propaganda. The article will argue that the legality of such political decisions should not be assessed solely within the ordinary administrative law framework, but under a constitutional principle of anti-entrenchment and process protection.</abstract><doi>10.1093/ojls/gqab037</doi><tpages>28</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0143-6503 |
ispartof | Oxford journal of legal studies, 2022-05, Vol.42 (2), p.383-410 |
issn | 0143-6503 1464-3820 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_crossref_primary_10_1093_ojls_gqab037 |
source | Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); Business Source Complete; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
title | Political Purposes, Anti-entrenchment and Judicial Protection of the Democratic Process |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T15%3A32%3A53IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-crossref&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Political%20Purposes,%20Anti-entrenchment%20and%20Judicial%20Protection%20of%20the%20Democratic%20Process&rft.jtitle=Oxford%20journal%20of%20legal%20studies&rft.au=Rowbottom,%20Jacob&rft.date=2022-05-23&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=383&rft.epage=410&rft.pages=383-410&rft.issn=0143-6503&rft.eissn=1464-3820&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/ojls/gqab037&rft_dat=%3Ccrossref%3E10_1093_ojls_gqab037%3C/crossref%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |