The Relaxation of Representative Standing in Administrative Law: A Side-Effect of Charters of Rights?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the 1970s there has been a well-documented and rather dramatic liberalisation of the rules of standing in judicial review applications across the common law world. The most notable aspect of this liberalisation has been with respect to representative applicants: those seeking to represent group or public interests. Forty years ago representative applicants were rarely granted standing to challenge administrative actions or law, and today they frequently are. During the same period, there has been a steady infiltration of human rights issues into judicial review cases, resulting largely from the adoption of bills or charters of rights which variously constrain government and legislative action. The concurrence of these two trends has led some to speculate that they are related; and specifically that the liberalisation of standing forms part of a more general ‘righting’ of administrative law. This article explores these suggestions by analysing the relationship between representative standing and rights in three common law jurisdictions, which share a common heritage but very different approaches to rights: the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".