Paul Craig, ‘Taxonomy and Public Law: A Response’

Abstract
There are, unsurprisingly, various ways in which to organize the material that comprises public law broadly conceived. The criteria that are brought to bear vary considerably, as does the purpose of the enterprise. The consequences of the organizational endeavour can differ significantly, ranging from the semantic to the substantive. Jason Varuhas has proposed a taxonomical division in public law, which is hard-edged and substantive. He claims to have detected a dangerous malaise that besets judicial reasoning in UK public law cases, which can only be cured by a firm dose of taxonomical rigour. He contends that common law judicial review and that practised in human rights cases are wholly different, with the former being public-regarding, and the latter individual-regarding. The more precise meaning of these terms will be explicated below. Varuhas argues that clarity in this regard is essential for a properly ordered public law, that only by doing so can the malaise that he believes to exist in judicial reasoning be cured, and that recognition of his suggested dichotomy provides the key to the cure …

Craig, Paul P, Taxonomy and Public Law: A Response (September 6, 2018). [2019] Public Law.

(Visited 27 times, 1 visits today)

Leave a Reply