DOCSLIB.ORG

Devolution of Implementing Policymaking in Network Governments Charles H

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty and Deans 2007 Devolution of Implementing Policymaking in Network Governments Charles H. Koch Jr. William & Mary Law School Repository Citation Koch, Charles H. Jr., "Devolution of Implementing Policymaking in Network Governments" (2007). Faculty Publications. 49. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/49 Copyright c 2007 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs THE DEVOLUTION OF IMPLEMENTING POLICYMAKING IN NETWORK GOVERNMENTS Charles H. Koch, Jr.* An undeniable, but often lamented, reality of modem government is that substantial policymaking must take place at the implementation stage. Legislative and executive authorities simply cannot resolve all policy issues, and they often find it politically inadvisable to do so. The danger, of course, is that efficiency or expediency will overwhelm the legitimate allocation of responsibility between the political authorities and the administrative authorities. The balance between democratic legitimacy and effective government thus dictates the delegation of the implementing authority. The more complex the society and the more complicated the demands on government, the more elusive this balance becomes. Legal principles regulating delegations of authority suggest that authority should be delegated based on hierarchy. Yet even in hierarchical systems, influence moves not only up and down but also horizontally among the decisionmakers and institutions within the system. Moreover, policy is made at the lower levels of the hierarchy without the participation of the hierarchy's upper reaches. Regardless, not all governments, especially supranational ones, can be understood as mere hierarchies. Instead, the realities of governmental policymaking are complicated by questions of legitimacy. Even more complexity is added when several governmental systems combine in some sort of federal organization. Recently, there has been a strong movement toward such organizations. Regions and ethnic groups in established nations and emerging nations alike are insisting on more autonomy. Nations are coming together to form a variety of supranational organizations, some quite broad in their mandates. These coordinated governments raise increasingly complex implementation and devolution issues. Traditional federal systems, such as the United States, have allocated shared authority • Dudley W. Woodbridge Professor of Law, William and Mary School of Law. B.A., University of Maryland, 1966; J.D., George Washington University, 1969; LL.M., University of Chicago, 1975. I would like to thank the organizers of and participants in the 2007 Randolph W. Thrower Symposium, Emory University School of Law, and the Emory Lnw Journal. 168 EMORY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 57 through a divided federalism in which central and subunit administrative hierarchies are formally segregated and their respective powers are more or less clearly defined. 1 In contrast to this traditional federal organizational concept, the European Union (E.U.) is built around commingled responsibilities. 2 From the beginning, the member states have been integrally involved in the policymaking from the foundational legislation to implementation. 3 Their engagement has only increased over the years, as E.U. institutions tend to give the member states implementing discretion through framework measures and "soft" laws.4 For these reasons, the E.U. system is most accurately characterized as a network, comprised of webs of interrelationships among E.U., national, and non-governmental institutions. Walter van Gerven observed, "While public authority was traditionally organized pyramidally along hierarchical lines, it is now also organized through numerous networks of public and private nuclei of power, making power move both vertically and horizontally."5 Policymaking influences may combine in a nearly infinite variety of forms with policy moving down from the central authority, up from the member state governments, and horizontally among the member states and their institutions. Even within the E.U. and national institutions, policy development is not necessarily hierarchical.6 1 See John C. Reitz, Political Economy and Separation of Powers, 15 TRANSNAT'L L. & CONTEMP. PRoss. 579, 618 (2006) ('The United States ... has a legislative system that divides lawmaking powers among two legislative houses and the President, who has little ability beyond his veto power to control legislation. It also has robust judicial review and is a federal state in which the states retain extensive lawmaking powers"). 2 See J.A.E. Vervaele, Counteifeiting the Single European Currency (Euro): Towards the Federalization of Enforcement in the European Union?, 8 CoLUM. J. EuR. L. 151, 151 (2002) ("As opposed to Nation States, in the European Union there is no complete separation of powers along the lines of the trias politico doctrine. The European Union is based on shared governance between the European Community/European Union and the Member states, being an integrated community legal order."). 3 DESMOND DINAN, EUROPE RECAST: A HISTORY OF EUROPEAN UNION 56-57 (2004). 4 See Peter L. Strauss, Rulemaking in the Ages of Globalization and Information: What America Can Learn from Europe and Vice Versa, 12 COLUM. J. EUR. L. 645, 676 (2006) ("When the EU has issued a "directive," setting framework standards that require implementing measures, these measures are commonly­ but not invariably-taken by Member States subject to EU controls for their adequacy."). 5 WALTER VAN GERVEN, THE EUROPEAN UNION: A POLICY OF STATES AND PEOPLES 159 (2005); see also id. (noting recognition of this fact by the E.U. Commission). 6 For example, the E.U. Council has nine configurations in which the relevant national ministers represent the member states in approving E.U. legislation. Thus, the E.U. policy that is imposed on the member states is to some extent created by the common member-state ministers, and perhaps more importantly, the combination of the staffs of the member-state departments, the permanent Council staffs, and the relevant Commission staff. PETER STRAUSS ET AL., NORM CREATION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 16-17 (2007), http://www .abanet.org/adminlaw/eu/Reports_Rulemak:ing_06-07-2007 .pdf. 2007] POLICYMAKING IN NETWORK GOVERNMENTS 169 The E.U. network system requires innovations in the concepts and strategies of federalism. It exposes challenges in carrying out a unified, effective, and legitimate implementation of shared programs. Even though the U.S. Constitution aspired to a "more perfect union" among the several states,7 it has been held to establish an adversarial relationship between the central government and its states.8 This divided federalism combined with the generally hierarchical allocation of authority presents a useful contrast to the E.U. network federalism. Network organization might have advantages and, regardless, may best describe many existing and emerging federal systems, both national and supranational.9 Hence, the E.U. and U.S. experiences and mechanisms offer insights into how to design other federal systems. 10 I. IMPLEMENTING POLICYMAKING Beyond the separation of powers issue, governmental entitles must also consider the legitimacy of delegations from the political bodies to the implementing bodies. The E.U. has somewhat paralleled the U.S. in accepting the necessity of delegating implementing policy. The evolution of the U.S. acceptance of that necessity goes back some distance and probably presages the ultimate development of E.U. delegation doctrine. 7 U.S. CONST. pmbl. 8 See Martin H. Redish, The Adversary System, Democratic Theory, and the Constitutional Role of Self­ Interest: The Tobacco Wars, 1953-1971, 51 DEPAUL L. REV. 359, 381 (2001) ("While adversary theory plays a central role in the history and philosophy of American political theory, its premises also pervade fundamental provisions of the United States Constitution."). 9 Anne-Marie Slaughter developed the idea of network government. See, e.g., ANNE-MARIE SLAUGHTER, A NEW WORLD ORDER (2004); see also Anne-Marie Slaughter & David T. Zaring, Networking Goes International: An Update (Washington & Lee Pub. Legal Studies Paper No. 2007-12, 2007), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=960484 (providing a literature review of the impressive and growing study of network governments). 10 Much of the discussion in this Article is informed by the study of and experience with U.S. administrative Jaw. As society grows outside national borders, so too do government and, consequently, administrative Jaw. A "global administrative law" is under construction and is recognized as a contributor to the study of network governments. Slaughter & Zaring, supra note 9, at 221-22. The leaders of that movement observed, 'The construction of a global administrative law is inevitably shaped and constrained by existing institutions and principles as well as the shifting patterns of international ordering and the normative foundations . Within these constraints, many strategies of institutional design are possible." Benedict Kingsbury et al., The Emergence of Global Administrative Law, 68 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. IS, 53 (2005). However, these leaders also cautioned: "Many of the emerging mechanisms of global administrative law stem from northern and western initiatives, and any attempt at justifying the need for such a body of law
Recommended publications
  • Administrative Lawt

    Administrative Lawt

    SURVEY ARTICLES Administrative Lawt by Johnny C. Burris* James M. Landis, in many ways the prophet of the modern concept of administrative law and process both in theory and practice,' commented in 1938 that: The last century has witnessed the rise of a new instrument of govern- ment, the administrative tribunal. Without too much political theory but with a keen sense of the practicalities of the situation, agencies were cre- ated whose functions embraced the three aspects of government. Rule- making, enforcement, and the disposition of competing claims made by contending parties, were all intrusted to them. As the years passed, the process grew.2 What was true in 1938 is even truer today. The process continues to grow at a rate which defies the ability of the most diligent lawyer to keep track of developments.3 This article is a continuation of earlier efforts4 designed t Copyright 0 1988 by Johnny C. Burris. * Associate Professor of Law, Nova University Center for the Study of Law. University of Kentucky (B.G.S., 1975); Salmon P. Chase College of Law, Northern Kentucky University (J.D., 1978); Columbia University School of Law (LL.M., 1984). 1. T. McCitw, PRoPtirs OF REGULATION 153-209 (1984); D. RrrcHiE, JAMES M. LANDIS (1980). 2. J. LANDIS, THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS 1-2 (1938) (emphasis added). 3. See, e.g., S. BREYER, REGULATION AND ITS REFORM 1-2, appendix 1 (1982); K. DAVIs, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW TEXT 3-4 (3d ed. 1972). It may also defy the ability of the courts and particularly the Supreme Court to continue to perform the traditional role assigned to them in the administrative process.
  • Judicial Review Scope and Grounds

    Judicial Review Scope and Grounds

    JUDICIAL REVIEW SCOPE AND GROUNDS By Scott Blair, Advocate THE TRIGONOMETRY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW In Scotland, unlike England and Wales, the judicial review jurisdiction is not limited to cases which have an element of public law. As explained by Lord President Hope in West v. Secretary of State for Scotland 1992 SC 385 at 413 the scope of judicial review is as follows: “ The following propositions are intended therefore to define the principles by reference to which the competency of all applications to the supervisory jurisdiction under Rule of Court 260B is to be determined: 1. The Court of Session has power, in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, to regulate the process by which decisions are taken by any person or body to whom a jurisdiction, power or authority has been delegated or entrusted by statute, agreement or any other instrument. 2. The sole purpose for which the supervisory jurisdiction may be exercised is to ensure that the person or body does not exceed or abuse that jurisdiction, power or authority or fail to do what the jurisdiction, power or authority requires. 3. The competency of the application does not depend upon any distinction between public law and private law, nor is it confined to those cases which English law has accepted as amenable to judicial review, nor is it correct in regard to issues about competency to describe judicial review under Rule of Court 260B as a public law remedy. By way of explanation we would emphasise these important points: (a) Judicial review is available, not to provide machinery for an appeal, but to ensure that the decision-maker does not exceed or abuse his powers or fail to perform the duty which has been delegated or entrusted to him.
  • The Justification for Protecting Reasonable Expectations

    The Justification for Protecting Reasonable Expectations

    Brooklyn Law School BrooklynWorks Faculty Scholarship 2001 The uJ stification for Protecting Reasonable Expectations Bailey Kuklin Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/faculty Part of the Law and Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation 29 Hofstra L. Rev. 863 (2001) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of BrooklynWorks. THE JUSTIFICATION FOR PROTECTING REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS Bailey H. Kuklin* CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................... 864 II. THE REASONS FOR PROTECTING REASONABLE EXPEcTATIONS ......................................................................... 867 A. Deontology ....................................................................... 867 B. Corrective Justice ............................................................. 869 C. DistributiveJustice ........................................................... 875 D. Intuitive Justice ................................................................. 877 E. Teleology .......................................................................... 879 F. Economics ......................................................................... 881 G. Miscellaneous................................................................... 883 Ifi. HARD CASES ............................................................................. 884 A. The Psychology of Expectations......................................
  • Judicial Power UQLJ Article F (Accepted Version)

    Judicial Power UQLJ Article F (Accepted Version)

    Judicial Power and the United Kingdom’s Changing Constitution * Mark Elliott Introduction The phrase ‘judicial power’ is an evocative one whose beauty — or danger — is to a large extent in the eye of the beholder. For some, the possession by the judicial branch of powers with real bite, up to and including powers of constitutional review, is a precondition of liberal democracy. For others, however, ‘judicial power’ conjures up something quite different — including the potential of curial authority to threaten democracy, and a corresponding imperative that such authority be approached with caution and rigorously cabined. Of course, the difficult questions, as always, arise other than at the extremes, where judges would respectively lack any power to uphold constitutional standards or, conversely, be free to run amok. The hard question is thus one of degree. Judicial power, in any rule of law-based system, is a given. But how much is too much? There are many ways in which that question can be, and has been, approached. One possibility involves using constitutional or political theory as the predominant lens, with the aim of developing a model of democracy that prescribes, among other things, the legitimate extent and nature of the judicial role. In this article, however, I take a different, less abstract approach, by examining the question of judicial power within a particular temporal and jurisdictional context — namely, the United Kingdom today, where a recent and prominent strand of opinion holds that the judiciary is guilty of overreach, and that ‘judicial power’ is therefore something that needs not only to be watched, but to be scaled back.1 In this paper, I take the unease that animates that school of thought and use it as a starting- point.
  • Judicial Review Across the Common Law World – Some Lessons from a Comparative Survey

    Judicial Review Across the Common Law World – Some Lessons from a Comparative Survey

    JUDICIAL REVIEW ACROSS THE COMMON LAW WORLD – SOME LESSONS FROM A COMPARATIVE SURVEY Richard Gordon QC It is a great privilege to be invited to give this talk to the Attorney-General’s chambers in Singapore. I have recently been in Hong Kong conducting a case before the Court of Final Appeal. You will be pleased (but perhaps not altogether surprised) to learn that everyone I spoke to there about Singapore had only the highest praise. In particular, your modern and forward-looking approach to law (including arbitration) was widely commented on. It is, I believe, characteristic of a modern and forward-looking approach to law that it looks at how other jurisdictions cope with similar issues. Hopefully, therefore, my topic will not be inappropriate. It is Judicial Review across the Common Law World – Some Lessons from a Comparative Survey. I think that it is easy for a lawyer in the United Kingdom to believe that the cases and principles that mark out the terrain of judicial review are the same throughout the common law world. We do not look for differences or changes. As Walter Bagehot – the great constitutional writer – once said of our unwritten constitution: ‘[a]n ancient and ever-altering constitution, such as the British, is like an old man who still wears, with attached fondness, clothes in the fashion of his youth. What you see of him is the same; what you do not see is wholly altered.’1 That insularity of any kind is a great mistake was brought home to me when I spent a few months in the spring of 2008 researching, teaching and lecturing in Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong.
  • Legitimate Expectations in Investment Treaty Law: Understanding the Roots and the Limits of a Controversial Concept

    Legitimate Expectations in Investment Treaty Law: Understanding the Roots and the Limits of a Controversial Concept

    Legitimate expectations in investment treaty law: Understanding the roots and the limits of a controversial concept Michele Potestà* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 II. In search of a justification beyond arbitral precedent ............................................. 3 III. Protection of legitimate expectations in domestic legal systems: A general principle of law? ................................................................................................................ 7 IV. Legitimate expectations and fair and equitable treatment ................................... 13 1. General remarks .................................................................................................. 13 2. Distinct situations warranting distinct approaches .......................................... 15 A. Contractual arrangements .................................................................................... 15 B. Informal representations ...................................................................................... 19 C. General regulatory framework ............................................................................. 26 a. Expectations of a stable framework v. specific commitments .......................... 30 b. Expectations must take into account all circumstances, including the level of development of the host country ........................................................................... 35 3.
  • 997 Modernizing Judicial Review Of

    997 Modernizing Judicial Review Of

    MODERNIZING JUDICIAL REVIEW OF PREROGATIVE POWERS 997 MODERNIZING JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE EXERCISE OF PREROGATIVE POWERS IN CANADA JENNIFER A. KLINCK* Despite judicial pronouncements that the source of government power, whether statutory or prerogative, should not affect judicial review, Canadian courts respond much more tentatively when asked to review exercises of prerogative powers than exercises of statutory powers. Courts (1) define prerogative powers in a way that makes it difficult to precisely articulate their existence and scope; (2) frequently avoid judicially reviewing exercises of prerogative powers by applying peculiar justiciability tests; and (3) when they do engage in judicial review, generally limit themselves to a conservative form of procedural review. This article proposes that courts reform judicial review of the exercise of prerogative powers by (1) adopting a principled approach to defining prerogative powers that starts with distinguishing the Crown’s prerogative powers from its natural person powers; (2) abandoning peculiar interest-based and subject matter justiciability tests in favour of a test that turns on the nature of the question, and maintaining a subject matter justiciability test only for exercises of prerogative powers that are integral to the democratic process; and (3) applying standard principles of administrative law to judicial review of the existence, scope, and exercise of prerogative powers. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................. 998 A.OVERVIEW OF THE PREROGATIVE POWERS ................... 998 B. DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY AND RULE OF LAW DEFICIENCES ..... 999 C. REFORMS TO JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE EXERCISE OF PREROGATIVE POWERS ANIMATED BY THE DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLE AND THE RULE OF LAW ......................... 1000 II. DEFINING THE PREROGATIVE ................................. 1002 A.
  • The Fourth Amendment and the "Legitimate Expectation of Privacy"

    The Fourth Amendment and the "Legitimate Expectation of Privacy"

    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 34 Issue 5 Issue 5 - October 1981 Article 2 10-1981 The Fourth Amendment and the "Legitimate Expectation of Privacy" Gerald G. Ashdown Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Fourth Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Gerald G. Ashdown, The Fourth Amendment and the "Legitimate Expectation of Privacy", 34 Vanderbilt Law Review 1289 (1981) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol34/iss5/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Fourth Amendment and the "Legitimate Expectation of Privacy" Gerald G. Ashdown* I. INTRODUCTION Judicial supervision of police practices has always necessitated a rather delicate balance. To the extent societal crime control val- ues are served, privacy and individual rights may, on balance, have to be compromised. On the other hand, effective law enforcement cannot be held absolutely sacrosanct at the expense of individual privacy interests. The dilemma thus created is one of providing the maximum possible accommodation to one interest without unduly infringing upon the other.1 The protection of individual privacy interests in this confron- tation with crime detection practices requires either the benefit of benevolent governmental self-restraint or some superimposed legal barrier protecting citizens from government overreaching. Given the strong governmental interest in suppressing antisocial conduct, in the form of both crime and perceived subversion, governmental self-control is unlikely to be exercised.
  • Separate Opinion

    Separate Opinion

    Separate Opinion In the Arbitration under Chapter XI of the NAFTA and the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules: Thunderbird ./. Mexico 1) Summary 1. I concur with my colleagues on several significant issues of the case: • The questions of jurisdiction, admissibility, control and waivers; • the rejection of the expropriation (NAFTA Art. 1110) claim; • the rejection of the “denial of administrative justice” claim; • the rejection of the NAFTA governments’ position that pursuant to Article 1102 Claimant needs to prove that the government had a direct intention to harm the foreign investor because it is foreign is required for Art. 1102 and needs to be proven by claimant; • the general view that the principle of legitimate expectation forms part, i.e. a subcategory, of the duty to afford fair and equitable treatment under Art. 1105 of the NAFTA. We also seem to concur on the general conditions for this claim – an expectation of the investor to be caused by and attributed to the government, backed- up by investment relying on such expectation, requiring the legitimacy of the expectation in terms of the competency of the officials responsible for it and the procedure for issuing it and the reasonableness of the investor in relying on the expectation. I do, however, not concur with the application of this standard to the specific factual situation in light of the purpose, specific content and precedents of the legitimate expectations standard as it should be applied under investment protection treaties based on recent relevant jurisprudence. 2. I have found the rejection of the national treatment (non- discrimination) under Art. 1102 more difficult.
  • Fourth Amendment Protection and the Expectation of Privacy in the Home of Another: When Is a Guest Really Not a Guest - Minnesota V

    Fourth Amendment Protection and the Expectation of Privacy in the Home of Another: When Is a Guest Really Not a Guest - Minnesota V

    Land & Water Law Review Volume 35 Issue 2 Article 10 2000 Search and Seizure - Fourth Amendment Protection and the Expectation of Privacy in the Home of Another: When Is a Guest Really Not a Guest - Minnesota v. Carter Gay George Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/land_water Recommended Citation George, Gay (2000) "Search and Seizure - Fourth Amendment Protection and the Expectation of Privacy in the Home of Another: When Is a Guest Really Not a Guest - Minnesota v. Carter," Land & Water Law Review: Vol. 35 : Iss. 2 , pp. 567 - 584. Available at: https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/land_water/vol35/iss2/10 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Law Archive of Wyoming Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Land & Water Law Review by an authorized editor of Law Archive of Wyoming Scholarship. George: Search and Seizure - Fourth Amendment Protection and the Expectat SEARCH AND SEIZURE-Fourth Amendment Protection and the Expectation of Privacy in the Home of Another: When is a Guest Really not a Guest? Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998). INTRODUCTION Based on a tip from an informant who had walked by a ground-floor apartment and saw the occupants bagging white powder, Jim Thielen, an Eagan, Minnesota, police officer, went to the apartment complex.' Once there, in order to get close enough to view the activities inside, he left the common sidewalk, crossed over the lawn, climbed behind some bushes and situated himself approximately twelve-to-eighteen inches from the window Thielen observed the packaging for several minutes by looking through a gap in a closed Venetian blind? He then left to contact police headquarters 4 so that affidavits for a search warrant could be prepared.
  • Expectation Is Based in India on Article 14 of the Constitution of India and Emerged Concept of This Doctrine, Is Gradually Gaining Importance

    Expectation Is Based in India on Article 14 of the Constitution of India and Emerged Concept of This Doctrine, Is Gradually Gaining Importance

    44 expectation is based in India on Article 14 of the constitution of India and emerged concept of this doctrine, is gradually gaining importance. This constitutional provision imposes the duty to act fairly on all public authorities and, therefore, people can have legitimate expectation that they will be treated fairly by the state. There is constitutional assurance for equal treatment and for providing equal opportunities to the citizens. Reflection of legitimate expectation forms part of principle of non- arbitrariness under Article14 and it becomes an enforceable right in case of failure of the state or its instrumentality to give due weight to it. 1.4 CRITICAL APPRAISAL Undoubtedly, the doctrine of legitimate expectations is a new feature in the domain of public law. But even today, it is not possible to define the doctrine precisely in clear terms of the law. However, in order to ensure the true application of the doctrine of legitimate expectations, the study about the background of the doctrine, becomes most essential. Hence, the theoretical background about the doctrine of legitimate expectations, is discussed in the next chapter. 43 instrumentalities have to conform to Article 14 of the Constitution of which non- arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law. A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This imposes the duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is fairplay in action. To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a state action, it is necessary to consider and give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely to be affected by the decision and also that unfairness In the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bonafide of the decision in a given case.
  • The Triumph of Practical Fairness Over Legitimate Expectation in Australian Administrative Law

    The Triumph of Practical Fairness Over Legitimate Expectation in Australian Administrative Law

    856 Singapore Academy of Law Journal (2017) 29 SAcLJ THE TRIUMPH OF PRACTICAL FAIRNESS OVER LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION IN AUSTRALIAN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW This article explores the adoption and ultimate rejection in Australian administrative law of the idea of a legitimately held expectation as a basis for implying a duty of procedural fairness in administrative decision-making or fleshing out the content of that duty. The article analyses the peaks and troughs of the application of the concept of legitimate expectation, from its shaky beginnings and adoption, implementing UK law, to its subsequent demise and death in the High Court decision in the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v WZARH (“WZARH”). Cases after WZARH are discussed and the new overall test of practical fairness in administrative decision-making is reviewed. Marilyn J PITTARD BEc (Hons), LLB (Hons) (Monash); Barrister and Solicitor (Supreme Court of Victoria); Professor, Faculty of Law, Monash University. 1 The questions in the two limbs of the doctrine of natural justice in administrative decision-making – when the duty to accord procedural fairness arises, and what the content of that duty of natural justice is – are not always easy to answer clearly in particular cases, hence the volume of litigation that has passed and still passes through the superior courts in Australia seeking adjudication on these questions. 2 The High Court in Saeed v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship1 neatly summarised the position by stating: “when a statute confers power to destroy or prejudice a person’s rights or interests, principles of natural justice regulate the exercise of that power”;2 and “all statutes are construed against a background of common law notions of justice and fairness”,3 thus Parliament must use clear words to exclude natural justice.