Search

This essay presents an overview of key elements of the discipline of political jurisprudence. It explains the significance of such basic concepts as politics, state, constitution to the building of political authority and examines, in particular, the significance of two different concepts of power: potestas, the power generated by being-in-common and experienced as ‘power to’, and potentia, the ability to achieve intended effects, experienced as ‘power over’. Political jurisprudence, it argues, entails more than the explication of certain principles of political right. Of its nature, it expresses an endless tension between different conceptions of right and maintains that reconciliation is transitory, the result of prudential judgment.

This paper contends that, notwithstanding the impressive philosophical argument Lindahl presents in his book, his essential point does not extend to the plurality of normative orders that operate throughout the social world. Rather, his argument demonstrates precisely what is special about the political domain within which the modern idea of public law is situated. Lindahl’s novel concept of a-legality is therefore best grasped as a reformulation of the modern concept of jus politicum, droit politique, political jurisprudence.

The various systems of public redress allow citizens to seek remedies for what they perceive to be poor treatment, mistakes, faults or injustices in their dealings with departments or agencies. They are the arrangements for getting things put right, remedying grievances, securing a second view or appealing a disputed decision and, where compensation is appropriate, the means through which this can be sought. Even where no fault is found, people should benefit from the assurance that they have been fairly treated and that decisions have been correctly made under the relevant rules. This report is not a single definitive analysis of redress; instead it is a first attempt to map the overall picture. The main focus is on the processes within government organizations for handling both complaints and appeals. The report also acknowledges the important roles of ombudsmen and other independent examiners and adjudicators within the realm of administrative justice. They routinely field the cases that departments and agencies have been unable to resolve, and are well placed to comment upon how existing systems might best be improved. Nearly 1.4 million cases are received through redress systems in central government annually and are processed by over 9,300 staff and at an annual cost of £510 million. In addition, processing these cases can create substantial additional expenditure –(a minimum of £198 million in central government) through legal aid costs paid to people who are eligible for this assistance. These additional costs are primarily in immigration and asylum appeals with lesser amounts on benefit appeals. The various redress mechanisms in this report have grown up over time and there is little consistency in their operation, making it difficult for departments and agencies to benchmark systems, identify inefficiencies and reduce costs while improving service. Most government organizations operate with an inclusive view of complaints as ‘any expression of dissatisfaction’, but others have a narrower definition, recording only interactions with dissatisfied customers as complaints, and others do not count complaints made and resolved at local or regional level. Only a very small number pay compensation and have therefore had to recognise the direct financial costs of their mistakes. There is also a problem with information. Around half of central government organizations cannot answer how many complaints they have received in either of the last two years. An important theme in the report is the value of redress mechanisms as a source of information for organizations about difficulties faced by their customers, and about the quality of their administrative processes. They may provide early warning of poor or deteriorating service, systematic errors in decision making, or problems with specific processes or areas of operation. Organizations that react quickly to early warnings can minimise the time and cost of resolving these difficulties, ideally with many straightforward complaints being put right without delay by a simple apology or though informal but effective channels.

Presents a review article of the book Darker Legacies of Law in Europe: The Shadow of National Socialism and Fascism over Europe and its Legal Traditions edited by Christian Joerges and Navraj Singh Ghaleigh, Hart Publishing, 2003.

This chapter discusses the main issues of debate which surround the question of whether or not it is desirable to seek to protect fundamental rights in constitutional documents. The potential juristic significance of this exercise, an exercise in what might be called the positivisation of natural rights, is examined. The chapter also assesses whether the institutional protection of designated rights can lead to more effective, enlightened, and responsive modes of governing. The democratic justification for the legal order is underpinned by the principle of popular sovereignty whereby a body of free and equal citizens comes together, generally through a representative assembly, to enact rules to promote the general welfare. This democratic form of accountability of governors to citizens ensures that the laws reflect the will of the people. This chapter also considers the reconciliation of rights and democracy, the foundations of rights claims and democracy claims, liberalism and republicanism, nature of the legal order, and architectonic principles and local politics.

This book seeks to trace the main dimensions of recent conflicts between central departments of governments and local authorities and to reveal something of their significance. It does so by focusing on the role of law in shaping the central-local government relations which is neglected in many contemporary studies and yet is of vital importance in identifying the character of that relationship. Precisely why they should be so is not self-evident. The main objective of this introduction therefore is to highlight the importance of this dimension to the study of central-local relations and then to explain the way in which the key themes of the study are to be addressed. One highly significant aspect of the study is the identification of a process of juridfication which is only gradually becoming clear. This has not only been a major undertaking, it has also been a highly complex, ambiguous, confusing, and frustrating activity. This has caused problems for government and for the judiciary and not surprisingly there have been expressions of discomfort on all sides. This book helps to explain where the process may have gone wrong and why ultimately it may be an objective which cannot be realised. Ultimately what the book seeks to demonstrate is that the issues raised by the government of central-local relations transcend the institution of local government and are directly linked to our system of parliamentary democracy. Furthermore the author argues that the system of central-local government relations has evolved in such a way that it reveals a great deal about our tradition of public law. An examination of these issues through an explication of the themes of legality and locality therefore requires the reader to address basic questions about the nature of contemporary British government.