No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
The seventh edition of Professor Dicey's well-known volume presents, as its most notable feature, an entirely new chapter on the droit administratif. All the previous editions have contained a chapter with this heading, but the doctrines set forth have, within the last half-dozen years, aroused so much adverse criticism that Professor Dicey has reëxamined the whole subject anew and has restated his views in what now constitutes one of the most valuable chapters of a notable book.
The study of administrative law, as a branch of public law, has in recent years obtained increased recognition, and with this has come especial interest in the administrative law of France; for in that country the system has obtained its fullest development. There the evolution has been steady and although it has passed through several stages, is not yet completed. From the beginning of the nineteenth century France has had, for the determination of administrative litigation (the contentieux administratif, as it is termed) a system of special courts separate and distinct from the regular courts of the land. Other countries of continental Europe have more recently established similar courts, it is true, but in none of these is the jurisidiction of such courts as extensive as it is in the administrative courts of the French republic.
2 Thus the state of things which existed in France at the beginning of the nineteenth century bore more likeness to what would be the condition of affairs in England if there were little or no distinction between the cabinet as part of the privy council and the judicial committee of the privy council, and if the cabinet, in its character of a judicial committee determined all questions arising between the government on the one side and private individuals on the other, and determined them with an admitted reference to considerations of public interest or of political expediency. Pp. 344–345.
3 P. 347.
4 The Ordinances of February 2 and March 12, 1831.
5 P. 369.
6 Pp. 342 ff.
7 P. 382, Note 2.
8 Les agents du Gouvernement, autres que les ministres, ne peuvent être poursuivis pour des faits relatifs à leurs fonctions, qu'en vertu d'une décision du conseil d'état; en ce cas la poursuite a lieu devant les tribunaux ordinaires.”
9 See, for examples, pp. 343, 354–5 and 383, note 2.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.