Abstract
This article examines non-statutory executive powers, which are commonly employed in the modern state but rarely studied as a distinct concept. The article assesses three treatments of these powers available in current English public law - prerogative, common law powers which rely on analogies between the state and legal persons, and judicial review - and argues that they fail to provide a proper balance between legality and need. Royal prerogative connotes a shrinking reservoir of ancient powers, while non-statutory powers respond to unexpected futures and statute's intrinsic eventual failings. Analogies to legal persons fail to address the particularities of executive powers. Judicial review provides only a partial solution, since absence of parliamentary approval is not, in itself, ground for special treatment of executive action. The author joins calls for theoretization of public law and advances a model of executive powers that draws on a composite theory of the executive branch and its functions.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 97-122 |
| Number of pages | 26 |
| Journal | Oxford Journal of Legal Studies |
| Volume | 25 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Mar 2005 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Medieval chains, invisible inks: On non-statutory powers of the executive'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver