The process of reviewing government actions is quite different in various places, based on local laws and traditions.
Common Law vs. Civil Law
In countries with common law, like the United States and the United Kingdom, judicial review (the process of checking government actions) relies a lot on past cases and legal decisions. It's about being fair, legal, and balanced.
On the other hand, in civil law countries, the rules for reviewing government actions are usually written in laws. These places focus more on following the laws closely.
Standards of Review
When reviewing actions, there are different levels of how closely courts look at things. In the U.S., there’s a rule called the Administrative Procedure Act. It lets judges take a very close look at what agencies do, often called a “hard look.” In Canada, they use a “reasonableness” standard. This means the courts are usually a bit more lenient, trusting agencies to make reasonable decisions unless they clearly make a very bad choice.
Procedural Variations
Some places say that before someone can ask the court to review a government action, they must try all other options first. However, other places let people go straight to the courts if they want. Also, who can challenge (or question) a government action varies a lot; some places require the person to be directly affected, while others are more open to letting anyone challenge.
Remedies and Enforcement
When courts decide that a government action was not right, they can offer different solutions, like stopping an action or giving money. But how these solutions are enforced can be different. In some regions, judges can make agencies follow the rules closely. In others, they have less power, and following the rules might depend on politics.
Knowing these differences helps us understand how government power is checked in different legal systems.
The process of reviewing government actions is quite different in various places, based on local laws and traditions.
Common Law vs. Civil Law
In countries with common law, like the United States and the United Kingdom, judicial review (the process of checking government actions) relies a lot on past cases and legal decisions. It's about being fair, legal, and balanced.
On the other hand, in civil law countries, the rules for reviewing government actions are usually written in laws. These places focus more on following the laws closely.
Standards of Review
When reviewing actions, there are different levels of how closely courts look at things. In the U.S., there’s a rule called the Administrative Procedure Act. It lets judges take a very close look at what agencies do, often called a “hard look.” In Canada, they use a “reasonableness” standard. This means the courts are usually a bit more lenient, trusting agencies to make reasonable decisions unless they clearly make a very bad choice.
Procedural Variations
Some places say that before someone can ask the court to review a government action, they must try all other options first. However, other places let people go straight to the courts if they want. Also, who can challenge (or question) a government action varies a lot; some places require the person to be directly affected, while others are more open to letting anyone challenge.
Remedies and Enforcement
When courts decide that a government action was not right, they can offer different solutions, like stopping an action or giving money. But how these solutions are enforced can be different. In some regions, judges can make agencies follow the rules closely. In others, they have less power, and following the rules might depend on politics.
Knowing these differences helps us understand how government power is checked in different legal systems.