FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2566959699> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2566959699 abstract "I. IntroductionThe objective of this article is to provide an excursus on how the High Court of Australia has resolved disputes about the boundaries of judicial power and the nature of courts with reference to notions of judicial independence and impartiality. It should be uncontroversial to assert that, in a modern parliamentary democracy, an independent and impartial judiciary forms a cornerstone of the rule of law. In particular, judicial independence and impartiality underpin the legitimacy of the state's exercise of administrative and legislative power over its constituents, by ensuring that such power is not exercised without regard to the limitations set out in law. This is accomplished in great part by the exercise of judicial power through the mechanism of judicial review of legislative and administrative action, and forms a part of the traditional justification for the exercise of that power.1Although this normative underpinning of the judicial function is well established, disputes about the boundaries of judicial power are nonetheless often the subject of contest. Questions arise, which require courts to explore and determine the constitutional limits of their own power. Conversely, courts must at times assert that a function or feature of judicial power is constitutionally guaranteed even where to do so inhibits the sovereignty of the Parliament. The outcomes of these disputes shape the exercise of judicial power and the scope of judicial review, and consequently have ramifications for judicial independence and impartiality.In recent years, it has become apparent that the High Court regards only bodies that are independent and impartial as capable vessels of judicial power.2 Other jurisdictions might derive utility from an examination as to how the High Court has construed the notion of a 'court' and the concept of 'judicial power' as being deeply bound up with, and protected by, the principles of independence and impartiality.II. Judicial Independence and ImpartialityThe roots of the modern institutional conception of judicial independence can be found in the passing of the Act of Settlement 1701 in the English Parliament after the infamous confrontation between Sir Edward Coke and King James I and the enactment of the English Bill of Rights.3 This act established certain protections for judges, such as rendering their commissions revocable only upon the ground of misbehaviour or upon an address of both Houses of Parliament. As befitting its status as a foundational document of responsible government, the influence of the Act of Settlement in this respect can be seen in the institutional arrangements entrenched within many modern constitutions.4 Judicial impartiality has at times been thought to refer to those factors which operate upon the internal decisional processes of judges as applied to a particular matter, as opposed to the structure of broader institutional arrangements which concern questions of judicial independence.5Judicial independence and impartiality are often treated as essential guarantees of the rule of law, which in and of itself is indispensable to the liberty of the state's citizens. A former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia has said that, 'The reason why judicial independence is of such public importance is that a free society exists only so long as it is governed by the rule of law - the rule which binds the governors and the governed, administered impartially and treating equally all those who seek its remedies or against whom its remedies are sought.'6 Around the world, the cause of judicial independence attracts the interest and concern of those who seek to guarantee the rule of law.7The High Court's increased engagement with questions concerning the essential features of a court and the boundaries of judicial power reflects this growing recognition at the international level about the centrality of judicial independence and impartiality to guaranteeing the rule of law. …" @default.
• W2566959699 created "2017-01-06" @default.
• W2566959699 creator A5048510789 @default.
• W2566959699 creator A5080511076 @default.
• W2566959699 date "2013-12-01" @default.
• W2566959699 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W2566959699 title "Defining Characteristics of ‘Judicial Power’ and ‘Court’ – Global Lessons from Australia" @default.
• W2566959699 doi "https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2013.11788272" @default.
• W2566959699 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W2566959699 type Work @default.
• W2566959699 sameAs 2566959699 @default.
• W2566959699 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W2566959699 countsByYear W25669596992018 @default.
• W2566959699 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2566959699 hasAuthorship W2566959699A5048510789 @default.
• W2566959699 hasAuthorship W2566959699A5080511076 @default.
• W2566959699 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2566959699 hasConcept C126053111 @default.
• W2566959699 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2566959699 hasConcept C163258240 @default.
• W2566959699 hasConcept C171460291 @default.
• W2566959699 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2566959699 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W2566959699 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2566959699 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W2566959699 hasConcept C2780564088 @default.
• W2566959699 hasConcept C46295352 @default.
• W2566959699 hasConcept C48764862 @default.
• W2566959699 hasConcept C62520636 @default.
• W2566959699 hasConcept C79638320 @default.
• W2566959699 hasConcept C81819989 @default.
• W2566959699 hasConcept C83009810 @default.
• W2566959699 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W2566959699 hasConceptScore W2566959699C121332964 @default.
• W2566959699 hasConceptScore W2566959699C126053111 @default.
• W2566959699 hasConceptScore W2566959699C144024400 @default.
• W2566959699 hasConceptScore W2566959699C163258240 @default.
• W2566959699 hasConceptScore W2566959699C171460291 @default.
• W2566959699 hasConceptScore W2566959699C17744445 @default.
• W2566959699 hasConceptScore W2566959699C190253527 @default.
• W2566959699 hasConceptScore W2566959699C199539241 @default.
• W2566959699 hasConceptScore W2566959699C2778272461 @default.
• W2566959699 hasConceptScore W2566959699C2780564088 @default.
• W2566959699 hasConceptScore W2566959699C46295352 @default.
• W2566959699 hasConceptScore W2566959699C48764862 @default.
• W2566959699 hasConceptScore W2566959699C62520636 @default.
• W2566959699 hasConceptScore W2566959699C79638320 @default.
• W2566959699 hasConceptScore W2566959699C81819989 @default.
• W2566959699 hasConceptScore W2566959699C83009810 @default.
• W2566959699 hasConceptScore W2566959699C94625758 @default.
• W2566959699 hasLocation W25669596991 @default.
• W2566959699 hasOpenAccess W2566959699 @default.
• W2566959699 hasPrimaryLocation W25669596991 @default.
• W2566959699 hasRelatedWork W120683721 @default.
• W2566959699 hasRelatedWork W1556953214 @default.
• W2566959699 hasRelatedWork W1598824586 @default.
• W2566959699 hasRelatedWork W19321828 @default.
• W2566959699 hasRelatedWork W2128656580 @default.
• W2566959699 hasRelatedWork W2248611234 @default.
• W2566959699 hasRelatedWork W2261307457 @default.
• W2566959699 hasRelatedWork W2287621448 @default.
• W2566959699 hasRelatedWork W2613080779 @default.
• W2566959699 hasRelatedWork W2764840663 @default.
• W2566959699 hasRelatedWork W2765656883 @default.
• W2566959699 hasRelatedWork W2772032748 @default.
• W2566959699 hasRelatedWork W2889380315 @default.
• W2566959699 hasRelatedWork W3124525116 @default.
• W2566959699 hasRelatedWork W3125073603 @default.
• W2566959699 hasRelatedWork W3125464562 @default.
• W2566959699 hasRelatedWork W3126058659 @default.
• W2566959699 hasRelatedWork W3185110571 @default.
• W2566959699 hasRelatedWork W416918147 @default.
• W2566959699 hasRelatedWork W71113408 @default.
• W2566959699 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2566959699 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2566959699 magId "2566959699" @default.
• W2566959699 workType "article" @default.