The judicial review of legislation in the United Kingdom: a public choice analysis

Allan, T. (2006). Parliament’s will and the justice of the common law: The Human Rights Act in constitutional perspective. Current Legal Problems, 59(1), 27–50. Bill Chavez, R., Ferejohn, J., & Weingast, B. (2011). A theory of the politically independent judiciary: A comparative study of the United States and Argentina. In G. Helmke & J. Rios-Figueroa (Eds.), Courts in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press. Black-Branch, J. (2002). Parliamentary supremacy or political expediency? The constitutional position of the Human Rights Act under British Law. Statute Law Review, 23(1), 59–81. Bogdanor, V. (2009). The new British constitution. Portland: Hart Publishing. Bonner, D., Fenwick, H., & Harris-Short, S. (2003). Judicial approaches to the Human Rights Act. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 52(3), 549–585. Brennan, G., & Buchanan, J. (1985). The reason of rules: Constitutional political economy. New York: Cambridge University Press. Brown, S. (2010). The unaccountability of judges: Surely their strength not their weakness. In C. Forsyth, M. Elliott, S. Jhaveri, A. Scully-Hill, & M. Ramsden (Eds.), Effective judicial review: A cornerstone of good governance. New York: Oxford University Press. Cooter, R. D. (2002). The strategic constitution. Princeton: Princeton University Press. De Figueiredo, R., Jacobi, T., & Weingast, B. R. (2008). The new separation-of-powers approach to American politics. In B. Weingast & D. Wittman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political economy. New York: Oxford University Press. Dickson, B. (2007). Judicial activism in the House of Lords 1995–2007. In B. Dickson (Ed.), Judicial activism in common law supreme courts. New York: Cambridge University Press. Dowding, J. (2006). The economic approach to the study of British politics. British Politics, 1, 26–43. Edwards, R. (2002). Judicial deference under the Human Rights Act. The Modern Law Review, 65, 859–882. Epstein, L., & Knight, J. (1997). The choices justices make. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Epstein, L., & Walker, T. G. (1996). Positive political theory and the study of U.S. Supreme Court decision making: understanding the sex discrimination cases. New York City Law Review, 1, 155–201. Erdos, D. (2009). Postmaterialist social constituencies and political triggers: Explaining bill of rights genesis in internally stable, advanced democracies. Political Research Quarterly, 62(4), 798–810. Erdos, D. (2010a). Delegating rights protection: The rise of bills of rights in the Westminster world. New York: Oxford University Press. Erdos, D. (2010b). Smoke but no fire? The politics of a ‘British’ bill of rights. The Political Quarterly, 81(2), 188–198. Ewing, K. (1999). The Human Rights Act and parliamentary democracy. The Modern Law Review, 62(1), 79–99. Ewing, K., & Tham, J. (2008). The continuing futility of the Human Rights Act. Public Law, 668–693. Farber, D., & Frickey, P. (1992). Foreword: Positive political theory in the nineties. Georgetown Law Journal, 80, 457–476. Feldman, D. (1999). The Human Rights Act 1998 and constitutional principles. Legal Studies, 19(2), 165–206. Feldman, D. (2004). The impact of human rights on the UK legislative process. Statute Law Review, 25, 91–115. Fenwick, H., Masterman, R., & Phillipson, G. (2007). The Human Rights Act in contemporary context. In H. Fenwick, R. Masterman, & G. Phillipson (Eds.), Judicial reasoning under the UK Human Rights Act. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ferejohn, J. (1995). Law, legislation, and positive political theory. In J. Banks & E. Hanushek (Eds.), Modern political economy: Old topics, new directions. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ferejohn, J., & Weingast, B. (1992). Limitation of statutes: Strategic statutory interpretation. The Georgetown Law Journal, 80, 565–582. Garoupa, N., & Ginsburg, T. (2008). The comparative law and economics of judicial councils. Berkeley Journal of International Law, 27(1), 52–82. Gearty, C. (2007). Civil liberties. New York: Oxford University Press. Gersen, J. (2010). Designing agencies. In D. Farber & A. O’Connell (Eds.), Research handbook on public choice and public law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Ginsburg, T. (2003). Judicial review in new democracies: Constitutional courts in Asian cases. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ginsburg, T. (2005). Bounded discretion in international judicial lawmaking. Virginia Journal of International Law, 45(3), 631–673. Ginsburg, T., & Kagan, R. (2005). Introduction: Institutionalist approaches to courts as political actors. In T. Ginsburg & R. Kagan (Eds.), Institutions and public law: Comparative approaches. New York: Peter Lang. Ginsburg, T., & Posner, E. (2010). Subconstitutionalism. Stanford Law Review, 62(6), 1583–1628. Harris-Short, S. (2007). Family law and the Human Rights Act 1998: Judicial restraint or revolution? In H. Fenwick, R. Masterman, & G. Phillipson (Eds.), Judicial reasoning under the UK Human Rights Act. New York: Cambridge University Press. Helmke, G., & Rios-Figueroa, J. (2010). Courts in Latin America. In G. Helmke & J. Rios-Figueroa (Eds.), Courts in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hiebert, J. (2006). Parliament and the Human Rights Act: Can the JCHR help facilitate a culture of rights? International Journal of Constitutional Law, 4(1), 1–38. Jacobi, T. (2006). The impact of positive political theory on old questions on constitutional law and the separation of powers. Northwestern University Law Review, 100, 259–278. Jacobi, T. (2010). The judiciary. In D. Farber & A. O’Connell (Eds.), Research handbook on public choice and public law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Kavanagh, A. (2004). The elusive divide between interpretation and legislation under the Human Rights Act 1998. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 24, 259–285. Kavanagh, A. (2009). Constitutional review under the UK Human Rights Act. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kavanagh, A. (2011). From Appellate Committee to UK Supreme Court: Independence, activism and transparency. In J. Lee (Ed.), From House of Lords to Supreme Court: Judges, jurists and the process of judging. Portland: Hart Publishing. Le Sueur, A., Sunkin, M., & Murkens, J. (2010). Public law: Text, cases, and materials. New York: Oxford University Press. Leigh, I. (2007). Concluding remarks. In H. Fenwick, R. Masterman, & G. Phillipson (Eds.), Judicial reasoning under the UK Human Rights Act. New York: Cambridge University Press. Leyland, P. (2007). The constitution of the United Kingdom: A contextual analysis. Portland: Hart Publishing. Mashaw, J. (1997). Greed, chaos, and governance: Using public choice to improve public law. New Haven: Yale University Press. Mashaw, J. (2010). Public law and public choice: Critique and reapproachment. In D. Farber & J. O’Connell (Eds.), Research handbook in public choice and public law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Masterman, R. (2011). The separation of powers in the contemporary constitution: Judicial competence and independence in the United Kingdom. New York: Cambridge University Press. McCubbins, M., Noll, R., & Weingast, B. (1987). Administrative procedures as instruments of political control. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 3(2), 243–277. McCubbins, M., Noll, R., & Weingast, B. (1989). The political origins of the administrative procedure act. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 15, 180–217. McCubbins, M., Noll, R., & Weingast, B. (1994). Legislative intent: The use of positive political theory in statutory interpretation. Law and Contemporary Problems, 5(1), 3–37. McCubbins, M., Noll, R., & Weingast, B. (2007). The political economy of law. In A. Mitchell Polinsky & S. Shavel (Eds.), Law and economics handbook. Radarweg: North Holland. McCubbins, M., & Rodriguez, D. (2006). The judiciary and the role of law. In B. Weingast & D. Wittman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political economy. New York: Oxford University Press. McCubbins, M., & Rodriguez, D. (2008). The judiciary and the role of law. In B. Weingast & D. Wittman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political economy. New York: Oxford University Press. McGoldrick, D. (2001). The United Kingdom’s Human Rights Act 1998 in theory and practice. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 50(4), 901–953. Mercuro, N., & Mendema, S. G. (2006). Economics and the law: From Posner to post-modernism and beyond (2nd ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press. Mueller, D. (2003). Public choice III. New York: Cambridge University Press. Nicol, D. (2004). The Human Rights Act and the politicians. Legal Studies, 24, 451–479. North, D. (1990). A transaction cost theory of politics. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2, 355–367. Palmer, E. (2007). Judicial review, socio-economic rights, and the Human Rights Act. Portland: Hart Publishing. Posner, R. (2001). Frontiers of legal theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Posner, E., & Vermeule, A. (2010). The executive unbound: After the Madisonian Republic. New York: Oxford University Press. Ramseyer, J. (1994). The puzzling (in)dependence of courts: A comparative approach. Journal of Legal Studies, 23, 721–747. Robertson, D. (1982). Judicial ideology in the House of Lords: A jurimetric analysis. British Journal of Political Science, 12, 1–25. Robertson, D. (2010). The judge as political theorist: Contemporary constitutional review. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Rodriguez, D. (2006). Delegation, risk diversification, and the properly political project of administrative law. Harvard Law Review Forum, 119, 202–209. Rowley, C. (2010). Public choice and constitutional political economy. In C. Rowley & F. Schneider (Eds.), Readings in public choice and constitutional political economy. New York: Springer. Smith, R. (2005). Constitutional reform, the Lord Chancellor, and Human Rights: The battle of form and substance. Journal of Law and Society, 32(1), 187–201. Spiller, P. (1996). A positive political theory of regulatory instruments: Contracts, administrative law or regulatory specificity? Southern California Law Review, 69, 477–515. Stearns, M., & Zywicki, T. (2009). Public choice and applications in law. Eagan: West Publishing. Stephenson, M. (2002). “When the devil turns…” the political foundations of independent judicial review. Journal of Legal Studies, 32, 59–89. Stephenson, M. (2008). The price of public action: Constitutional doctrine and the judicial manipulation of legislative enactment costs. The Yale Law Journal, 118(2), 2–62. Stephenson, M. (2010). Statutory interpretation by agencies. In D. Farber & A. O’Connell (Eds.), Research handbook on public choice and public law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Stephenson, M. (2011). Information acquisition and institutional design. Harvard Law Review, 124, 1422–1483. Stevens, R. (2001). Judicial independence in England: A loss of innocence. In P. Russell, P. Russell, & D. O’ Brien (Eds.), Judicial independence in the age of democracy: Critical perspectives from around the world. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. Steyn, J. (2005). Deference: A tangled story. Public Law, 346–359. Sunkin, M. (1995). Judicialization of politics in the United Kingdom. International Political Science Review, 15(2), 125–133. Sweeny, J. (2010a). The United Kingdom’s Human Rights Act: Using its past to predict its future. Loyola Journal of Public Interest Law, 12, 39–83. Sweeny, J. (2010b). Positive political theory and the UK’s new parliamentary system of government. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1703965. Syrett, K. (2011). The foundations of public law. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Tiller, E. (2002). Resource-based strategies in law and positive political theory: Cost-benefit analysis and the like. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 150(5), 1453–1472. Tomkins, A. (2003). Public law. New York: Oxford University Press. Tridimas, G. (2005). Judges and taxes: Judicial review, judicial independence and the size of government. Constitutional Political Economy, 16, 5–30. Tridimas, G. (2010). Constitutional judicial review and political insurance. European Journal of Law and Economics, 29, 81–101. Tsebelis, G. (2002). Veto players: How political institutions work. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Tullock, G., Seldon, A., & Brady, B. (2002). Government failure: A primer of public choice. Washington, DC: Cato Institute. Tushnet, M. (2008). Weak courts, strong rights: Judicial review and social welfare rights in comparative constitutional law. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Vanberg, G. (2005). The politics of constitutional review in Germany. New York: Cambridge University Press. Vanberg, G. (2008). Establishing and maintaining judicial independence. In G. Caldeira, D. Keleman, & K. Whittington (Eds.), Oxford handbook of law and politics. New York: Oxford University Press. Vermeule, A. (2011). The atrophy of constitutional powers. Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 11-07. Volcansek, M. (2001). Constitutional courts as veto players: Divorce and decrees in Italy. European Journal of Political Research, 39, 347–372. Wade, W., & Forsyth, C. (2010). Administrative law (10th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Walker, C., & Weaver, R. L. (2000). The United Kingdom Bill of Rights 1998: the modernisation of rights in the old world. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 33, 497–560. Whittington, K. (2003). Legislative sanctions and the strategic environment of judicial review. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 1(3), 446–474. Whittington, K. (2007). The political foundations of judicial supremacy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Wintemute, R. (2006). The Human Rights Act’s first five years: Too strong, too weak, or just right? King’s College Law Journal, 17, 209–227. Wood, B., & Bohte, J. (2004). Political transaction costs and the politics of administrative design. The Journal of Politics, 66(1), 176–202. Woodhouse, D. (2007). United Kingdom—The Constitutional Reform Act 2005—Defending judicial independence the English way. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 5(1), 153–165.