Deference to the Executive?

Dr. Alexander Silke MJur (Oxford)

doi:10.5771/9783748943853

Summary

The book examines the changing approach of courts in reviewing foreign affairs decisions of the executive. Traditionally, the judiciary awarded deference to executive decisions in that area, a notion that clashes with the idea of general judicial oversight in the modern constitutional state. As the problem is often looked at solely from a national angle, this thesis chooses a comparative approach taking into account the development in three democratic countries to identify general trends as well as differences. Thereby, it shows the development of a new judicial approach, which does not per se defer to executive assessments in the field.

Keywords

Search publication

Bibliographic data

Copyright year: 2024
ISBN-Print: 978-3-7560-1079-0
ISBN-Online: 978-3-7489-4385-3
Publisher: Nomos, Baden-Baden
Series: Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht
Volume: 336
Language: English
Pages: 434
Product type: Book Titles

Titelei/InhaltsverzeichnisPages 1 - 30 Download chapter (PDF)
Download chapter (PDF)
1. I. The issue of judicial review in foreign affairs – three examples
2. 1. 1. Selection of jurisdictions
  2. 2. Structure
  3. 3. The thesis within the broader project of comparative foreign relations law
  4. 4. Methodological remarks and conceptual constraints
Download chapter (PDF)
1. 1. 1. Thomas Hobbes
  2. 2. John Locke
  3. 3. Charles Montesquieu
2. 1. 1. a) Jenkins, Blackstone and foreign affairs as crown prerogatives
    2. b) The birth of deference in the Victorian Age
    3. 1. aa) Older South African constitutions
      2. bb) The new South African Constitution
  2. 1. a) A new idea of separation of powers in foreign affairs: Continental Congress and Constitutional Convention
    2. b) Early constitutional practice and first traits of the traditional position
    3. c) Early traces of the traditional position in the Supreme Court
    4. d) The late victory of deference: from Quincy Wright to Sutherland
  3. 1. a) Prussian legal thought and constitutional practice
    2. b) The German Empire
    3. c) Weimar Republic
    4. d) Nazi Germany
    5. e) Contemporary German Law
3. III. Conclusion on the Origins of Deference
Download chapter (PDF)
1. 1. 1. Standing (USA)
  2. 2. Klage- und Antragsbefugnis (Germany)
  3. 3. The new South African rules of standing (South Africa)
2. 1. 1. Political Question Doctrine (USA)
  2. 2. Justizfreie Hoheitsakte (Germany)
  3. 3. From Act of State to Political Questions? (South Africa)
3. 1. 1. Executive law-making and binding ‘suggestions’ (USA)
  2. 2. Bindungswirkung (Germany)
  3. 3. Certification (South Africa)
4. 1. 1. Deference in the narrow sense (USA)
  2. 2. Areas of discretion and reduced level of review (Germany)
  3. 3. Reduced levels of scrutiny (South Africa)
5. 1. 1. Other forms of deference
  2. 2. The deference scale
6. VI. Conclusion on Defining Deference
Download chapter (PDF)
1. 1. 1. 1. aa) Treaties and US constitutional law
      2. (1) Early jurisprudence and ‘zero deference’
        (2) Early 20th century and the birth of deference in treaty interpretation
        (a) Two conflicting approaches
        (b) Chevron deference in treaty interpretation
        (c) Sanchez-Llamas and Hamdan
        (d) Recent developments in treaty interpretation
    2. 1. aa) Situation in former German legal orders
      2. (1) Early decisions concerning treaties – the Constitutional Court getting involved in foreign affairs
        (2) The Saarstatut decision and the Washington Agreement – widening the scope of review
        (3) Fundamental Relations Treaty and Hess case – more leeway for the executive?
        (4) Pershing case and Out of Area- executive influence in the subsequent development of treaties
        (5) Recent developments
        (6) Excursus – Cases concerning interim relief
    3. 1. aa) Older South African constitutions
      2. bb) New South African Constitution
    4. d) Conclusion on treaty interpretation
  2. 1. a) United States
    2. b) Germany
    3. c) South Africa
    4. d) Conclusion on recognition of states and governments
  3. 1. a) United States
    2. b) Germany
    3. c) South Africa
    4. d) Conclusion on state immunity
  4. 1. 1. aa) Early cases concerning individual immunity
      2. bb) Situation post-FSIA and the Supreme Court’s decision in Samantar v Yousuf
      3. cc) Current developments – a circuit split
    2. 1. aa) Foreign official immunity during the Bismarck and Weimar Constitutions
      2. (1) Statutory foundations
        (a) General background of the case
        (b) The approach of the Regional Court
        (c) The holding of the higher courts
        (d) Lessons from the Tabatabai case
        (3) Further developments in Germany
    3. 1. aa) The situation under previous South African constitutions
      2. (1) Al-Bashir case
        (2) Mugabe case
        (3) Lessons from the Al-Bashir and Mugabe cases
    4. d) Conclusion on foreign official immunity
  5. 1. a) United States
    2. b) Germany
    3. c) South Africa
    4. d) Conclusion on diplomatic protection
  6. 6. Conclusion on the tracing of deference
2. 1. 1. a) Cases cited as a basis for non-reviewability in South Africa
    2. b) Evaluating contemporary case law
  2. 2. The role of the executive assessments in the absence of a doctrine of non-reviewability in contemporary German law
  3. 3. The status of conclusiveness doctrines in contemporary US law
3. III. Conclusion on the Application of Deference
Download chapter (PDF)
1. 1. 1. a) The ‘deterritorialization’ of the state and its economy
    2. b) The changing structure of the international system and international law
    3. c) The development of a global legal dialogue
  2. 1. a) General blurring of the domestic and international law divide
    2. b) Closer entanglement in foreign relations law
  3. 1. a) Traditional exclusion of the legislative branch from foreign affairs
    2. 1. aa) Germany
      2. bb) South Africa
      3. cc) United States
      4. dd) International law
    3. 1. aa) Germany
      2. bb) South Africa
      3. cc) United States
  4. 1. a) General acceleration of convergence trends
    2. b) Strengthening judicial review in foreign affairs
2. 1. 1. Position within the international system
  2. 2. Constitutional framework
  3. 1. a) German legal tradition and scholarship in the 19th century
    2. b) Openness towards international law
    3. c) Focus on constitutional and human rights
  4. 1. a) Populism and deference
    2. b) Instances of a ‘populist’ backlash in the United States, Germany and South Africa
    3. c) The impact of the populist backlash
3. III. Conclusion on the Dynamics of Deference
Download chapter (PDF)
1. I. A ‘modern position’?
2. II. Future dynamics: Russia’s war in Ukraine
3. 1. 1. The ‘foreign affairs fairy tale’
  2. 2. Towards a balanced and transparent margin of discretion approach
4. IV. Conclusion – The emperor without clothes
Summary of FindingsPages 385 - 396 Download chapter (PDF)
BibliographyPages 397 - 434 Download chapter (PDF)