Template talk:Administrative law
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
New template
[edit]I thought the administrative law articles could use some clean-up and better integration. Please feel free to modify or add to this template. I went for a minimalist approach - I thought of including major cases like Chevron in it, but then it could just end up getting too cluttered, plus we do want to avoid giving it too much of an American POV. LegalSkeptic 03:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- I've separated "grounds for judicial review" from "general principles" to prevent the general principles heading being too cluttered (as well as added other grounds of judicial review like the non-fettering principle, proportionality, and Wednesbury unreasonableness (alongside patent unreasonableness which as I understand is just the Canadian version of unreasonableness).
- There is no general article for the non-fettering principle (or "fettering of discretion"), and so I temporarily linked the Singaporean article on "fettering of discretion". When a general article is written for that principle (including other legal perspectives like English law), we can link that instead.
- Trolligarch (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Procedural justice, natural justice, due process, fundamental justice
[edit]I'm not too sure about other jurisdictions, but it seems like other countries call natural justice other things and have their own rules to govern it, including due process and fundamental justice. To make the infobox more internationally friendly, I've decided to put them all as subheadings under the general umbrella term of "procedural justice".
Maybe all of these articles can be cleaned up/merged/linked/etc. in the future?