Public Law Studies Quarterly

Administrative Litigation Patterns Based on Structural Criteria, Procedural Methods, and the Presentation of Evidence

Document Type : Article

Author

Khadijeh Shojaeian

Assistant Prof. Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law and Humanities, Islamic Azad ‎University Shiraz Branch, Shiraz, Iran‎

https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2024.362176.3353
Abstract
In various legal systems, diverse methods are employed to resolve administrative disputes, and each system follows a specific pattern for administrative litigation depending on various factors. The specific conditions of a country and its historical, political, and social contexts determine the unique characteristics of its litigation system. The presentation of content in this paper is comparative, aiming to describe and introduce different litigation models without prioritizing any particular system. In this article, based on criteria related to the structure of litigation, the method of conducting trials as inquisitorial or adversarial, and the degree of judicial oversight being open or limited, four patterns of administrative litigation have been identified In the first model, litigation is conducted in an adversarial manner, with administrative bodies performing a combined (administrative-litigation) function, and closed judicial oversight is exercised in general courts. In the second litigation model, independent courts separate from administrative bodies address administrative disputes using an adversarial method, and in the final stage, closed judicial oversight is applied by general courts. In the third model, litigation is handled by specialized courts that address administrative cases in an inquisitorial manner and openly. Finally, the defining feature of the fourth model is open judicial oversight in general courts.

Keywords

administrative adjudication
administrative tribunals
inquisitorial adjudication
adversarial adjudication
judicial review
Subjects
  1. English
  2. A) Books
  3. Asimow, M. (2019). Federal Administrative Adjudication Outside the Administrative Procedure Act. Washington, D.C.: Administrative Conference of the United States.
  4. Asimow, M.R. (2014). Inquisitorial Adjudication and Mass Justice in American Administrative Law. In Laverne Jacobs and Sasha Baglay, The Nature of Inquisitorial Processes in Administrative Regimes: Global Perspectives. Edited by Laverne Jacobs and Sasha Baglay. London: Routledge. 93-112. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2503177
  5. Asimow, M. & Lubbers, J. S. (2010). The Merits of ‘Merits’ Review: A Comparative Look at the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice. 28(2). https://ssrn.com/abstract=1904392
  6. Cane, P. (2016). Controlling Administrative Power: A Historical Comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Cane, P. (2009). Administrative Tribunals and Adjudication. Portland: Hart Publishing.
  8. Cane, P. (2008). Understanding Administrative Adjudication. In Administrative Law in a Changing State: Essays in Honour of Mark Aronson Hardcover. Edited by Linda P., Carol, H.& Michael, T. Portland: Hart Publishing, 273-299.
  9. Cane, P. (2010). Judicial Review and Merits Review: Comparing Administrative Adjudication by Courts and Tribunals. In Comparative Administrative Law. edited by Susan, R.A & Peter, L.L. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 426-448. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849808101.00036
  10. Ford, C. (2013). Dogs and Tails: Remedies in Administrative Law. In Administrative Law in Context .edited by Lorne, S. & Colleen, F. . Toronto: Emond Montgomery, https://commons.allard.ubc.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1129&context=fac_pubs
  11. Stebbings, C. (2009). Legal Foundations Of Tribunals In Nineteenth-Century England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  12. Ushijma, H. (2009). Administrative Law and Judicialized Governance in Japan. In , Administraive Law and Governance in Asia. edited by Tom, G.& Albert H. Y. C., Oxfordshire: Rutledge, 81-100.

 

  1. B) Articles
  2. Antony, G. (2015). Administrative Justice in The United Kingdom. Italian Journal of Public Law, (7(1).
  3. Asimow, M. (2015). Five Models of Administrative Adjudication. American Journal of Comparative Law, (63), https://ssrn.com/abstract=2502210 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2502210
  4. Asimow, M., & Yoav, D. (2016). Open and Closed Judicial Review of Agency Action, The American Journal of Comparative Law, 64(3).
  5. Cui, W., Cheng, J. & Wiesner, D. (2018). Judicial Review of Government Actions in China. Journal of Comparative Law, 17(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3228175
  6. Elliott, M. (2012). Ombudsman, Tribunals, Inquiries: Re-Fashioning Accountability beyond the courts. University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Research Paper, (21). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2133879.
  7. Huang, C. Y. & Law, D.S. (2014) . Proportionality Review of Administrative Action in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, & China. Legal Studies Research Paper Series, 14-08-07.https://ssrn.com/abstract=2496220
  8. Perlingeiro, R. (2016). Contemporary Challenges In Latin American Administrative Justice .BRICS Law Journal, 3(2), 21-56.
  9. Verbic, F. (2016). An Overview Of Administrative Justice In Argentina. BRICS law Journal, 3(2), 57-66.
  10. Xiao, S. & Lin, Y. (2022). Judicial Review of Administrative Rules in China: Incremental Expansion of Judicial Power. Journal of Comparative Law, 17(2), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4296692

 

Electronic Sources

  1. Administrative Justice in Europe-Report For France-. https://www.aca-europe.eu/en/eurtour/i/countries/france/france_en.pdf
  2. Administrative Justice in Europe ,Report for the United Kingdom. https://www.acaeurope.eu/en/eurtour/i/countries/unitedkingdom/unitedkingdom_en.pdf
  3. Gunther, C. (2016). Administrative Justice In Europe, Report For Germany. https://www.aca-europe.eu/en/eurtour/i/countries/germany/germany_en.pdf
  4. Thomas, R. (2012). Adversarial v Inquisitorial to Active, Enabling, and Investigative: Developments in UK Administrative Tribunals. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144457
  5. Usui, M. (2013). Administrative Justice In Japan. presented at a CIPL and AIAL Seminar, ANU College of Law. https://www6.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AIAdminLawF/2014/9.pdf

 

References In Persian:

  1. A) Books
  2. Abbasi, B. (2016). Comparative Administrative Law. Tehran: Dadgostar (In Persian).
  3. Ayene Negini, H., & Abrishmi Rad, M. A.. (2021). Administrative procedure (judicial course). Tehran: Majd Publications (In Persian).
  4. Fathi, Y. (2020). The optimal system of proceedings in administrative courts: a comparative study with an emphasis on Iranian authorities. Tehran: Khorsandy Pulications (In Persian).
  5. Hadavand, M., & Aghaei Touq, M. (2010). Administrative tribunals in the Light of fair trial Principles (Iranian Law in Comparative perspective). Tehran: Khorsandi Publications (In Persian).
  6. Imami, M., & Osovar Sangari, K. (2012). Administrative Law. Vol.2, Tehran: Mizan (In Persian).
  7. Kunnecke, M. (2017).Comparative Administrative Law: Tradition And Change In Administrative Law Of The United Kingdom and Germany. translated by Khadijeh, S. & Nagin, S. B.. Tehran: Majd Publications (In Persian).
  8. Ostovar Sangari, K. (2023). Administrative Procedure Law. Tehran: Datik Pulications (In Persian).
  9. Rezaizadeh, M. J. (2021). Administrative Acts. Tehran: Majd Publications (In Persian).
  10. Shami, M. (2014). Law of Administrative Contracts. Tehran: Jungle Publications (In Persian).
  11. Tabatabai Motmani, M. (2005). Administrative Law. Tehran:Samt Publications (In Persian).

 

  1. B) Articles
  2. Barker, M., & Nagel, A. (2015). The principle of unreasonableness: as a Ground of Judicial Review in the Australian Legal System. Translated by Khadijeh S.. Ray Journal, 4(10).117-132. 10.22106/jcr.2015.28518 (In Persian).
  3. Gorgi Azandriani, A. A. & Eskandari, M. (2020). Criteria for Determining the Competence of the Administrative Judge in the German Legal System. Administrative Law. 7( 22).221-244. 10.29252/qjal.7.22.221 (In Persian).
  4. Mohseni, H. (2007). Civil Justice Systems. Private Law Studies Quarterl. 37(1). 81-115. 20.1001.1.25885618.1386.37.1.4.4 (In Persian).
  5. Ostovar Sangari, K. (2020). Essence of administrative proceedings in Iran: proceedings in the administration or proceedings on the administration.The Journal of Modern Administrative Law Research. 2(4), 135-159. 10.22034/mral.2020.139000.1069 (In Persian).
  6. Shojaeian, K. (2019). Changes of Ground of Reasonableness in USA Judicial Review. Public Law Research. 20(61), 235-259. https://doi.org/10.22054/qjpl.2018.25258.1622 (In Persian).
  7. Yavari, A. (2009). Judicial Review on Administrative Decisions in Germany. Law and Interest, 2(5), 129-150 (In Persian).
  8. Zarei, M. H. & Mohsenzadeh, A. Law of evidence in administrative proceeding. (2016). The Quarterly Journal of Judicial Law Views, 20(72), 65-92 (In Persian).
Public Law Studies Quarterly
Volume 55, Issue 3 - Serial Number 43
Autumn 2025
Autumn 2025
Pages 2075-2098

  • Receive Date 17 July 2023
  • Revise Date 23 October 2023
  • Accept Date 15 April 2024

Home

Journal Process Ethics

Peer Review Process

Submission

Indexing and Abstracting

Contact Us