Democratizing Review: Justifiability as the Animating Vision of Administrative Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the central functions of administrative law is the control of public power by the courts. The relationship between the courts on one hand and the and the executive and the legislature as the arms of government primarily responsible for exercising public power on the other, is often drawn into focus by administrative law. The tension of this relationship is no more easily seen than when courts are asked to review the administrative functions of the executive. The executive is responsible for the development and implementation of policy and the implementation of legislation, yet the exercise of all public power must be consistent with the supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law. Further, the right to administrative justice in South Africa requires that all administrative action must be lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair. The constitutional commitment to social justice requires that a project of transformation be pursued, and this is reflected in policy and legislation. This article examines how administrative action taken by the executive in implementing socially transformative policy and legislation is controlled by administrative review, and uses the study of specific cases as a springboard to outlining a theory of administrative law that respects the proper role of the courts, the executive and the legislature. The article suggests that basing the relationship between the three branches of government in a democratically defined principle of justifiability will help to ease the tension it currently experiences, by describing the limits of administrative review.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.109 | 0.147 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.086 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".