|
||||
|
||||
The Merits of ‘Merits’ Review: A Comparative Look at the Australian Administrative Appeals TribunalMichael AsimowStanford Law School Jeffrey S. LubbersAmerican University - Washington College of Law March 14, 2011 Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice, Forthcoming Stanford Public Law Working Paper No. 1785894 American University, WCL Research Paper No. 2011-10 Abstract: This article compares several systems of administrative adjudication. In the U.S., adjudication is typically performed by the same agency that makes and enforces the rules. However, in Australia, almost all administrative adjudication is performed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), a non-specialized adjudicating agency, and several other specialized tribunals that are independent of the enforcing agency. These tribunals (which evolved out of concerns about separation of powers) have achieved great legitimacy. In the U.K., recent legislation (the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act) merged numerous specialized tribunals into a single first-tier tribunal with much stronger guarantees of independence than previously existed. An upper tribunal hears appeals from the first tier and largely supplants judicial review. The article concludes by asking whether the U.S. could learn anything from the Australian and U.K. experience and suggests that a single tribunal to adjudicate federal benefits cases might be a significant improvement over the existing model.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 28 Keywords: Administrative Law, Comparative Law, Administrative Adjudication, Administrative Appeals Tribunal, AAT, Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act Accepted Paper SeriesDate posted: March 19, 2011Suggested CitationContact Information
|
|
||||||||||||||
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
FAQ
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Copyright
This page was processed by apollo7 in 2.766 seconds