Reconciling with the Past: John Willis and the Question of Judicial Review in Interwar and Postwar England
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This contribution was prepared for a conference at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law in honor of John Willis, the late Anglo-Canadian administrative law theorist who died in 1997. It will appear in a forthcoming issue of the University of Toronto Law Journal. Throughout his career, John Willis puzzled over the way in which both popular and elite opinion in England (not to mention throughout the Commonwealth and in the United States) persistently, and in his view uncritically, equated the "Rule of Law" in important respects with judicial review in the administrative state. Willis believed this attachment to judicial review as a legitimating mechanism was the result of a misguided focus on "the problem of reconciling," as he called it. This referred to the adjustments needed both in the structures of administrative governance as well as in public law so that, on the one hand, effective state intervention could proceed but, on the other, it could still be understood as "constitutional" and "democratic" in a historically recognizable sense. This article views Willis's discomfort with the "problem of reconciling" as itself problematic. His disparaging attitude toward the place of judicial review in the administrative state was an outgrowth of a limited and one-sided conception of historical change that focused on structural evolution while in effect dismissing its cultural dimension except as a force of obstruction and resistance. Part I of this article summarizes the debates over legislative delegation and administrative justice in interwar England in order to give a sense of the legal-political environment in which Willis came of age as a scholar. Part II turns to the two decades after 1945 to examine efforts by legal and political actors in England to arrive at a more or less stable settlement over the role of judicial review in the administrative state. Willis did not participate directly in these postwar debates because of his move to Canada in the mid-1930s; nevertheless, he continued to view English developments as a kind of analytical baseline for examining the interaction of administrative governance and parliamentary democracy more generally, whether in Canada or elsewhere in the Commonwealth. This paper concludes by reflecting on the writings of Willis at the end of his career in light of efforts in postwar England to achieve a constitutional settlement over the place of judicial review in administrative law.
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 | 0.016 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".