The right to judicial review

Yuval Eylon*, Alon Harel

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

33 Scopus citations

Abstract

Judicial review is typically justified on consequentialist grounds, namely that it is conducive to the effective protection of individual rights. This Essay disputes this popular explanation for judicial review and argues that judicial review is based on a "right to voice a grievance" or a "right to a hearing" - a right designed to provide an opportunity for the victim of an infringement to challenge that infringement. The state must justify and, in appropriate cases, reconsider any infringement in light of the particular claims and circumstances of the victims of the infringement. This right-to-a-hearing-based justification implies that judicial review is justified even if, ultimately, it is found to be detrimental to the protection of rights. Finally, this Essay concludes that the right to a hearing is a participatory right and, consequently, that judicial review does not conflict with the right to equal democratic participation.

Original languageAmerican English
Pages (from-to)991-1022
Number of pages32
JournalVirginia Law Review
Volume92
Issue number5
StatePublished - Sep 2006

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The right to judicial review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this