Está en la página 1de 4

3/20/2016

JudicialreviewWikipedia,thefreeencyclopedia

Judicialreview
FromWikipedia,thefreeencyclopedia

Judicialreviewisthedoctrineunderwhichlegislativeandexecutiveactionsaresubjecttoreviewby
thejudiciary.Acourtwithjudicialreviewpowermayinvalidatelawsanddecisionsthatare
incompatiblewithahigherauthority,suchasthetermsofawrittenconstitution.Judicialreviewisone
ofthechecksandbalancesintheseparationofpowers:thepowerofthejudiciarytosupervisethe
legislativeandexecutivebrancheswhenthelatterexceedtheirauthority.Thedoctrinevariesbetween
jurisdictions,sotheprocedureandscopeofjudicialreviewmaydifferbetweenandwithincountries.

Contents
1 General
1.1 Judicialreviewofadministrativeacts
1.2 Judicialreviewofprimarylegislation
1.2.1 Noreviewbyanycourts
1.2.2 Reviewbygeneralcourts
1.2.3 Reviewbyaspecializedcourt
2 Inspecificjurisdictions
3 Seealso
4 Footnotes
5 Furtherreading
6 Externallinks

General
Judicialreviewcanbeunderstoodinthecontextoftwodistinctbutparallellegalsystems,civillaw
andcommonlaw,andalsobytwodistincttheoriesofdemocracyregardingthemannerinwhich
governmentshouldbeorganizedwithrespecttotheprinciplesanddoctrinesoflegislativesupremacy
andtheseparationofpowers.
First,twodistinctlegalsystems,civillawandcommonlaw,havedifferentviewsaboutjudicialreview.
Commonlawjudgesareseenassourcesoflaw,capableofcreatingnewlegalprinciples,andalso
capableofrejectinglegalprinciplesthatarenolongervalid.Inthecivillawtradition,judgesareseenas
thosewhoapplythelaw,withnopowertocreate(ordestroy)legalprinciples.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review

1/4

3/20/2016

JudicialreviewWikipedia,thefreeencyclopedia

Secondly,theideaofseparationofpowersisanothertheoryabouthowademocraticsociety's
governmentshouldbeorganized.Incontrasttolegislativesupremacy,theideaofseparationofpowers
wasfirstintroducedbyMontesquieu[1]itwaslaterinstitutionalizedintheUnitedStatesbytheSupreme
CourtrulinginMarburyv.MadisonunderthecourtofJohnMarshall.Separationofpowersisbasedon
theideathatnobranchofgovernmentshouldbeabletoexertpoweroveranyotherbranchwithoutdue
processoflaweachbranchofgovernmentshouldhaveacheckonthepowersoftheotherbranchesof
government,thuscreatingaregulativebalanceamongallbranchesofgovernment.Thekeytothisidea
ischecksandbalances.IntheUnitedStates,judicialreviewisconsideredakeycheckonthepowersof
theothertwobranchesofgovernmentbythejudiciary.
Differencesinorganizing"democratic"societiesledtodifferentviewsregardingjudicialreview,with
societiesbasedoncommonlawandthosestressingaseparationofpowersbeingthemostlikelyto
utilizejudicialreview.Nevertheless,manycountrieswhoselegalsystemsarebasedontheideaof
legislativesupremacyhavelearnedthepossibledangersandlimitationsofentrustingpowerexclusively
tothelegislativebranchofgovernment.Manycountrieswithcivillawsystemshaveadoptedaformof
judicialreviewtostemthetyrannyofthemajority.
Anotherreasonwhyjudicialreviewshouldbeunderstoodinthecontextofboththedevelopmentoftwo
distinctlegalsystems(civillawandcommonlaw)andtwotheoriesofdemocracy(legislativesupremacy
andseparationofpowers)isthatsomecountrieswithcommonlawsystemsdonothavejudicialreview
ofprimarylegislation.ThoughacommonlawsystemispresentintheUnitedKingdom,thecountrystill
hasastrongattachmenttotheideaoflegislativesupremacyconsequently,judgesintheUnited
Kingdomdonothavethepowertostrikedownprimarylegislation.However,sincetheUnitedKingdom
becameamemberoftheEuropeanUniontherehasbeentensionbetweenitstendencytowardlegislative
supremacyandtheEU'slegalsystem,whichspecificallygivestheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropean
Unionthepowerofjudicialreview.

Judicialreviewofadministrativeacts
Mostmodernlegalsystemsallowthecourtstoreviewadministrativeacts(individualdecisionsofa
publicbody,suchasadecisiontograntasubsidyortowithdrawaresidencepermit).Inmostsystems,
thisalsoincludesreviewofsecondarylegislation(legallyenforceablerulesofgeneralapplicability
adoptedbyadministrativebodies).Somecountries(notablyFranceandGermany)haveimplementeda
systemofadministrativecourtswhicharechargedwithresolvingdisputesbetweenmembersofthe
publicandtheadministration.Inothercountries(includingtheUnitedStatesandUnitedKingdom),
judicialreviewiscarriedoutbyregularcivilcourtsalthoughitmaybedelegatedtospecializedpanels
withinthesecourts(suchastheAdministrativeCourtwithintheHighCourtofEnglandandWales).The
UnitedStatesemploysamixedsysteminwhichsomeadministrativedecisionsarereviewedbythe
UnitedStatesdistrictcourts(whicharethegeneraltrialcourts),somearerevieweddirectlybythe
UnitedStatescourtsofappealsandothersarereviewedbyspecializedtribunalssuchastheUnited
StatesCourtofAppealsforVeteransClaims(which,despiteitsname,isnottechnicallypartofthe
federaljudicialbranch).Itisquitecommonthatbeforearequestforjudicialreviewofanadministrative
actisfiledwithacourt,certainpreliminaryconditions(suchasacomplainttotheauthorityitself)must
befulfilled.Inmostcountries,thecourtsapplyspecialproceduresinadministrativecases.

Judicialreviewofprimarylegislation
Therearethreebroadapproachestojudicialreviewoftheconstitutionalityofprimarylegislationthat
is,lawspasseddirectlybyanelectedlegislature.
Noreviewbyanycourts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review

2/4

3/20/2016

JudicialreviewWikipedia,thefreeencyclopedia

Somecountriesdonotpermitareviewofthevalidityofprimarylegislation.IntheUnitedKingdom,
statutescannotbesetasideunderthedoctrineofparliamentarysovereignty.Anotherexampleisthe
Netherlands,wheretheconstitutionexpresslyforbidsthecourtstoruleonthequestionof
constitutionalityofprimarylegislation.[2]
Reviewbygeneralcourts
IntheUnitedStates,federalandstatecourts(atalllevels,bothappellateandtrial)areabletoreviewand
declarethe"constitutionality",oragreementwiththeConstitution(orlackthereof)oflegislationthatis
relevanttoanycaseproperlywithintheirjurisdiction.InAmericanlegallanguage,"judicialreview"
refersprimarilytotheadjudicationofconstitutionalityofstatutes,especiallybytheSupremeCourtof
theUnitedStates.ThisiscommonlyheldtohavebeenestablishedinthecaseofMarburyv.Madison,
whichwasarguedbeforetheSupremeCourtin1803.AsimilarsystemwasalsoadoptedinAustralia.[3]
Reviewbyaspecializedcourt
In1920,Czechoslovakiaadoptedasystemofjudicialreviewbyaspecializedcourt,theConstitutional
CourtaswrittenbyHansKelsen,aleadingjuristofthetime.ThissystemwaslateradoptedbyAustria
andbecameknownastheAustrianSystem,alsoundertheprimaryauthorshipofHansKelsen,being
emulatedbyanumberofothercountries.Inthesesystems,othercourtsarenotcompetenttoquestion
theconstitutionalityofprimarylegislationtheyoftenmay,however,initiatetheprocessofreviewby
theConstitutionalCourt.
Russiaadoptsamixedmodelsince(asintheUS)courtsatalllevels,bothfederalandstate,are
empoweredtoreviewprimarylegislationanddeclareitsconstitutionalityasintheCzechRepublic,
thereisaconstitutionalcourtinchargeofreviewingtheconstitutionalityofprimarylegislation.The
differenceisthatinthefirstcase,thedecisionaboutthelawsadequacytotheRussianConstitutiononly
bindsthepartiestothelawsuitinthesecond,theCourt'sdecisionmustbefollowedbyjudgesand
governmentofficialsatalllevels.

Inspecificjurisdictions
Canada
CzechRepublic
Denmark
HongKong
Ireland

Malaysia
NewZealand
Philippines
Sweden
Switzerland

Taiwan
EnglandandWales,UnitedKingdom
Scotland,UnitedKingdom
UnitedStates

Seealso
Judicialactivism

Footnotes
1.Montesquieu,BaronCharlesde,TheSpiritofLaws
2.Article120oftheNetherlandsConstitution(http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001840/geldigheidsdatum_28
072014#Hoofdstuk6_Artikel120)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review

3/4

3/20/2016

JudicialreviewWikipedia,thefreeencyclopedia

3.AustralianCommunistPartyvCommonwealth(1951)83CLR1AustLII
(http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1951/5.html)

Furtherreading
EdwardS.Corwin,TheDoctrineofJudicialReview:ItsLegalandHistoricalBasisandOther
Essays.Piscataway,NJ:TransactionPublishers,2014.

Externallinks
JudicialReview:ALegalGuide(http://a4id.org/sites/default/files/user/Judicial%20Review.pdf)
Corrado,MichaelLouis(2005).ComparativeConstitutionalLaw:CasesandMaterials.ISBN0
890897107.(Countrybycountrycasestudies)
N.Jayapalan(1999).ModernGovernments.AtlanticPublishersandDistributors.ISBN97881
71568376.(Acomparisonofmodernconstitutions)
Beatty,DavidM(1994).Humanrightsandjudicialreview.MartinusNijhoffPublishers.
ISBN9780792329688.(Acomparisonofnationaljudicialreviewdoctrines)
Wolfe,Christopher(1994).TheAmericandoctrineofjudicialsupremacy.Rowman&Littlefield.
ISBN9780822630265.(Thisbooktracesthedoctrine'shistoryinaninternational/comparative
fashion)
Vanberg,Georg(2005)."ConstitutionalReviewinComparativePerspective".Thepoliticsof
constitutionalreviewinGermany.CambridgeUniversityPress.ISBN9780521836470.(The
effectsofpoliticsinlawinGermany)
Galera,S.(ed.),JudicialReview.AcomparativaAnalysisinsidetheEuropeanLegalSystem,Councilof
Europe,2010,ISBN9789287167231,http://book.coe.int/EN/ficheouvrage.php?
PAGEID=36&lang=EN&produit_aliasid=2485
Retrievedfrom"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judicial_review&oldid=710057929"
Categories: Judicialreview
Thispagewaslastmodifiedon14March2016,at18:34.
TextisavailableundertheCreativeCommonsAttributionShareAlikeLicenseadditionalterms
mayapply.Byusingthissite,youagreetotheTermsofUseandPrivacyPolicy.Wikipediaisa
registeredtrademarkoftheWikimediaFoundation,Inc.,anonprofitorganization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review

4/4

También podría gustarte