2004,, 1980,,,,1991 (the Citizen s Charter), :,,, (), reconsideration,(in2 ternal review),(, ),,,, 2 1,,,, ;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 3, 2 Terence G. Ison,Admi

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "2004,, 1980,,,,1991 (the Citizen s Charter), :,,, (), reconsideration,(in2 ternal review),(, ),,,, 2 1,,,, ;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 3, 2 Terence G. Ison,Admi"

匆僪
7 years ago
Views:

1 : Ξ :,,,,,,,,,, :,,, org. cn () (administrative jusitce), 1957 (),,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 1,, Ξ,,,, 1 Michael Harris and Martin Partington,Introduction in A dmi nist rative J ustice i n the 21 st Cent ury, edited by Michael Harris and Martin Partington,Hart publishing,1999,pp

2 2004,, 1980,,,,1991 (the Citizen s Charter), :,,, (), reconsideration,(in2 ternal review),(, ),,,, 2 1,,,, ;,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 3, 2 Terence G. Ison,Administrative J ustice : Is It Such a Good Idea? in A dmi nist rative J ustice i n the 21 st Cent ury,p Administrative Review Council2Better Decisions : Review of Com monwealth Merits Review Tribunals2Report No. 39, September ,paras &

3 4,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, () 1. (appeal),,,, 5,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 6,,,,,,,, 2.,, 4 Terence G. Ison,Administrative J ustice : Is It Such a Good Idea? in A dmi nist rative J ustice i n the 21 st Cent ury,p ,,,,,, A dministrative L aw,8 th Edition, by Wade & Forsyth, Oxford 2000 pp Ibid.,pp

4 2004,,,,,,(() ),,,,,,,, 7,, Ridge v Baldwin :,,, 8 9 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj, :,,, :,,, 10 :,,, : ;; ( f unct us of f icio),, :,,,,,,,, 11 Bhardwaj,: 7 S. Skehill,The Hidden Dimension of Administrative Law : Internal and First Tier Review - I,in A dmi nist rative L aw : Ret rospect 8 [ 1964 ]AC40,p (2000) 61 ALD Comptroller2General of Customs v Kawasaki Motors, (1991) 32 FCR Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond,[ 1990 ]170 CL R 321 AT and Prospect (1987) 58 Camberra B ulletin of Public A dminist ration 137,138.

5 ,,,,,28,, ( ), 12,,,,,, : (1),,, ;,,,,, (2),,,, 13 (),, (judicialisation),,,,, : 14,,,, 15,, ;,;,,,?, 16, 12(2000) 61 ALD 577,at Matt Minogue ( Executive Office, Administrative Review Council), Internal Review of A dministrative Decisions,Canberra,5 July Fuller, The Forms and Limits of Adjudication,92 Harv. L. Rev. 353,364 (1978). 15Craig, A dmi nist rative L aw,4 th Edition,London,Sweet & Maxwell,1999,p Mashaw, B ureaucractic J ustice (1983). Craig, A dmi nist rative L aw,4 th Edition,London,Sweet & Maxwell,1999,p

6 2004 ( ),,,,,,,,, : (1), (2), (3),, (4), (5), (6),,(7),,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;; ; ;, 17,, 18, :,,,, 1993,,,, 1995,,,, 20,, 19 17Citizen s Charter Unit, Complaints Task Force, Good Practice Guide (1995). 18Citizen s Charter Unit, Complaints Task Force, Putting Things Right : Main Report (1995), para A dmi nist rative L aw,8 th Edition, by Wade & Forsyth pp Michael Harris( ED. ),New Procedure in A dmi nist rative J ustice i n the 21 st Cent ury pp

7 ,,,,,, :,,, ; ; ; 21 () 22, :,,,,,, 23, (normative effects),,, :,,,,,,,,,,,, :,,,,,, 24 21Cabinet Office, Office of Public Service, Redress under the Citizen s Charter : Gui dance f or Depart ments and A gencies (1996). 22Matt Minogue ( Executive Office, Administrative Review Council), Internal Review of A dminist rative Decisions, Canberra,5 J uly Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia ; Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs,[ 2001 ] HCA17 (29 March 2001). 24Administrative Review Council2Internal Review of A gency Decision Maki ng2report to the Attorney2General, Report No. 44, November 2000,Paragraphs

8 2004,,,,,,,,() ;,,,,,,, (),,, ;,,, (), (adjudicative model of review) :,,,,,, 25, ( ),, (),,,,,,,,, 1957,,,,,,, ;,,,;,, 26,,,, 27,,:, 25Sainsbury,Internal Reviews and the Weakening of Social Security ClaimantsRights of Appeal in G. Richardson and H. Genn, 26Report of The Committee on A dministrative Tribunal and Enquiries,Cmnd. 218 (1957). 27Michael Harris, The Place of Formal and Informal Review in the Administrative J ustice System in A dmi nist rative J ustice i n the 21 st 24 A dminist rative L aw and Government Action (1994,Clarendon,Oxford),p Cent ury, edited by Michael Harris and Martin Partington, Hart publishing,1999,p. 46.

9 ( ),, 28,,,,,,,,,, 29,, 30,,,,,,,, 31,,,,,, ;,,,,, 32,,,,,,, 33 () ( ), 34,,,,,, (1) (2),,,, (3),, 28Council on Tribunals, A nnual Report ( HC1991/ 92,97), para Review of Com monwealth Merits Review Tribunals (Australian Administrative Review Council (ARC) Discussion Paper,1994), para N. Wikleley and R. Young,The Administration of Benefits in Britian. Adjudication and the influence of Social Security Appeals Tri2 bunals [ 1992 ] Public L aw 238, Sainsbury,A dmi nist rative Review or Tribunal,Conference of Tribunal President and Chairman,22nd April 1994 (Council on Tri2 bunals,1994),14. 32Michael Harris,The Place of Formal and Informal Review in the Administrative J ustice System in A dminist rative Justice in the 21 st Cent ury, edited by Michael Harris and Martin Partington, Hart publishing,1999,p Ibid.,p Terence G. Ison,Administrative J ustice : Is It Such a Good Idea? in A dmi nist rative J ustice i n the 21 st Cent ury,p

10 2004 (4),,(5) (,), 35, 1998,1998, () ,1983 ( HASSASSA),, , ( 2), (DSS),,,:,,,, : (1) (2), (3),,,, 2. ( 3),,,,, : HASSASSA,, 35Ibid., p Roy Sainsbury,The Reform of Social Security Adjudication ina dmi nist rative J ustice i n the 21 st Cent ury, pp

11 3. ( 4),,,, 1988,,,,,,,,,,, 27

12 2004 : (1),,(2) (3) (4),(5) (6) 37 () ,,, : (1) (2), (3),,(4) (5) (,,,),, (6) ( ITS), ( ), : (1) ; (2) ; (3) : (1),, (2) (3), (4) (5) (6), (7), (8),(9) ITS,,, () , ( 5), (second look) :,,,,,, 37Michael Harris( ED. ),New Procedure in A dmi nist rative J ustice i n the 21 st Cent ury pp Roy Sainsbury,Social Security Decision Making and Appeals, in Social Security L aw i n Context, edited by Neville Harris, Ox2 28 ford University Press.

13 ,, ( ),,,,, :, ;,, ;,,,,,,,, : 39 (1),,, (2),, (3),,,(4), 39Michael Harris( ED. ),New Procedure,in A dmi nist rative J ustice i n the 21 st Cent ury pp

14 2004,,,,,,,,,,,,,, :,,, ;,,,,, 40 [ Abstract] In traditional administrative justice system of the U K, emphasis was put on judicial re2 view and appeal, and reconsideration or t he internal review of administ rative decisions was almost altoget her neglected. But in recent years, this situation, influenced by the administrative reform and the importance attached to alternative dispute resolution in t he reform of civil justice, has changed. More and more people pay attention to the study of the reform of internal review system. Efforts have been made to improve the independence of t he review officials wit hout breaking t heir connections wit h decision2makers. The purpose of the reform is to make full use of the system, meet the needs of public service users and realize the sys2 tem s normative effect s. 40,,, 30, review ( )

2005 3, ; 3, 4,( ) : ( ), (), :() ; (),( ), ( ),,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, (law enforcement discount) 5 :,,, (),,, :, ;, (),,,,,, 6 3,,, 4,,: 5,, 6,, 38,:, ;,,,

Ξ :,,, ;,,,,, : :, 1, (institutionalized evasion of institutions) 2,,, :, ( ), Ξ,,, 1,:,,2003,354 2,, : ;,;,,,;,,,,,,;() :,, 2001,86 37 2005 3, ; 3, 4,( ) : ( ), (), :() ; (),( ), ( ),,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, (law