|
P. Craig, Administrative Law (4th, Sweet & Mxwell, 1999), chap.17, esp. pp.552-577.
Jeffrey Jowell, “Of Vires and Vacuums: The Constitutional Context of Judicial Review”, (1999) Public Law 448; “Beyond the Rule of Law: Towards Constitutional Judicial Review”, (2000) Public Law 671.
R. v. Panel on Take-overs, 2 WLR 699, at 724. 该案涉及对一个证券交易所的司法审查。这个交易所既非行政机关也没有制定法赋予其权力，却行使规制和惩罚的公共职能。
Barnes Woolf, “Droit Public -- English Style”, (1995) Public Law 57, at 66.
John Laws, “Law and Democracy”, (1995) Public Law 72, at 79.
De Smith, Woolf & Jowell, Principles of Judicial Review (Sweet & Maxwell, 1999), pp.112-113.
C. Forsyth, “Of Fig Leaves and Fairy Tales: The Ultra Vires Doctrine, the Sovereignty of Parliament and Judicial Review”, (1996) Cambridge Law Journal 122.
ibid.
ibid.
C. Forsyth & M. Elliot, “The Legitimacy of Judicial Review”, (2003) Public Law 286. Also see, M. Elliot, “The Constitutional Foundations of Judicial Review” (Hart, 2001), p143.
M. Elliot, The Constitutional Foundations of Judicial Review (Hart, 2001), pp.4-10.依照爱略特这个逻辑，福赛前面的限定是不必要的。
C. Forsyth, “Of Fig Leaves and Fairy Tales: The Ultra Vires Doctrine, the Sovereignty of Parliament and Judicial Review”, (1996) Cambridge Law Journal 122.
南非1953年的《公共安全法》授权总统在紧急状态下制定紧急条例，而且据此制定的条例任何法院都不得审查。面对1980年代席卷全国的反对种族隔离运动，总统援引该法制定了若干内容含糊的紧急法规，例如新闻记者不得采访、报道和拍摄任何“骚乱”事件和场面。在针对紧急条例的诉讼中，一审法院以紧急条例内容过于含糊以致超越权限为由而宣布其无效。最高法院认为越权原则过于牵强，不能适用，“授权立法内容过于含糊本身就是一个攻击理由，而不必把它看成越权的一种表现”。最高法院的最后结论是，紧急条例虽然内容宽泛，但仍然属于总统权限范围，因而法院不能审查。Staatspresident en andere v. United Democratic Front en ’n ander 1988(4) SA 830(A). 判决书原文是用南非荷兰语写的，相关引述和讨论参见C. Forsyth, “Of Fig Leaves and Fairy Tales: The Ultra Vires Doctrine, the Sovereignty of Parliament and Judicial Review”, (1996) Cambridge Law Journal 122.
ibid.
P. Craig, “Ultra Vires and the Foundations of Judicial Review”, (1998) Cambridge Law Journal 63; P. Craig, “Competing Models of Judicial Review” , (1999) Public Law 428; P. Craig, Administrative Law (4th, Sweet & Maxwell, 1999), esp. Chap17. Also see, L. Jaffe & E. Henderson, “Judicial Review and the Rule of Law: Historical Origins”, (1965) Law Quarterly Review 345.
W. Wade, Constitutional Fundamentals (1st, Stevens & Sons, 1980), p.70.
C. Forsyth, “Of Fig Leaves and Fairy Tales: The Ultra Vires Doctrine, the Sovereignty of Parliament and Judicial Review”, (1996) 55 Cambridge Law Journal 122.
P. Craig, “Constitutional Foundations, the Rule of Law and Supremacy”, (2003) Public Law 92, at 107-109. 但不是所有人都认同克雷格的温和立场。对议会主权的批评和否定，参见最后部分。
T. R. S. Allan, “The Constitutional Foundation of Judicial Review: Conceptual Conundrum or Interpretative Inquiry?”, (2002) Cambridge Law Journal 87.
T. R. S. Allan, Law, Liberty and Justice: The Legal Foundations of British Constitutionalism (Clarendon, 1993); Constitutional Justice: A Liberal Theory of the Rule of Law (Oxford, 2001).
Sir Stephen Sedley, “Human Rights: A Twenty-first Century Agenda”, (1995) Public Law 386, at 389; and “The Common Law and the Constitution”, in Lord B. Nolan & Sir S. Sedley, “The Making and Remaking of the British Constitution” (1997), p.26.
J. A. G. Griffith, “The Political Constitution”, (1979) Modern Law Review 1, and “The Common Law and Political Constitution”, (2001) Law Quarterly Review 42.
T. R. S. Allan, “Constitutional Dialogue and the Justification of Judicial Review”, (2003) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 563.
|
