Path dependence in administrative adjudication: the role played by legal tradition

Based on the theory of path dependence, we show that legal tradition affects the administrative court’s rulings. It also complements the two other reasons for diversified verdicts: the experience of the judges and courts (specialization) and preference (bias) for one of the parties. This effect is persistent even if the verdicts are controversial and result in serious consequences for a party and when the penalty paid by the complainant is perceived as excessive but fulfilling the strict rules of law. We prove that judicial decision making is a function of path dependency stemming from a legal tradition of the court. To confirm this, logistic regression is applied to a sample of 337 erroneous excise duty documentation cases of heating oil sales from all sixteen provincial administrative courts in Poland. Increasing the specialization of judges and having them exchange experiences may be a remedy for the unjustified adjudication differences.

By the Letter of Law? The Effects of Administrative Adjudication for Resolving Disputes in NYC’s Restaurant Grading Initiative

Administrative adjudication can serve as a quasi-judicial forum for resolving disputes resulting from government regulations. New York City recently required restaurants to post letter grades reflecting their compliance with food safety regulations and incorporated an easily accessible administrative adjudication system into its policy design. This study examines the implementation of this feature of the policy by using a regression discontinuity framework to explore the effects of the grading policy on adjudication processes and regulatory outcomes. Quantitative data included 222,527 food safety inspection records (2007–2014); qualitative data included interviews, observations, and document review. Restaurants were more likely to have violations reduced and grades improved at adjudication when grades were at stake. Moreover, adjudication outcomes were highly sensitive to score differences near grade cut-points. Professional representatives helped restaurants to negotiate the interpretation of rules in the quasi-judicial proceedings, softening rigidity of regulations. Representatives’ expertise was consistent with being “repeat players,” which may distort the use of such forums to ensure justice and fairness. This study illuminates the ramifications of including alternative dispute resolution systems in the implementation of regulatory policies.

Administrative adjudication

The US system of administrative adjudication in which our federal agencies decide disputes with private parties themselves with administrative hearings, with an internal appeal, followed by judicial review based on the administrative record in the federal courts is familiar to American lawyers. But that is not the system that is followed by most countries around the world—where agency decisions are typically made in a very informal manner, with any requested hearings taking place in administrative courts or tribunals and sometimes with further review in the ‘regular’ courts. This dichotomy between the US system of internal administrative adjudication and external administrative adjudication around the world reveals that the United States is the outlier. This chapter describes this dichotomy in more detail and examines its implication in terms of administrative justice and other qualitative measures of the different models.

Administrative Functions of Implementation, Control of Administrative Decisions, and Protection of Rights

This essay includes a comparative analysis of the traditions of administrative law in Latin American and their impact on the contemporary scene and trends in the general orientations of its administrative justice systems. This analysis is limited to Latin American countries of Iberian origin under the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (“I/A Court H.R”). The method followed by the author is to point out the roles attributable to the administrative authorities and to attempt to identify a distinction in Latin America between the “administrative function of implementation”, “control of the legality of administrative decisions” (unrelated to any adjudicative function) and the “protection of rights” (by means of an adjudicative function) while examining their historical genesis and possible future trends. From that perspective, the text discusses certain administrative powers, such as disciplinary or other regulatory powers, and their forms of concrete application; the prerogatives and instruments of the authorities and of their decision-making employees in the exercise of the functions of implementation; the control of administrative decisions by those authorities themselves and by external bodies; and judicial and extrajudicial protection of rights against administrative decisions. The author concludes that Latin American administrative law, despite the fact that its civil-law substantive roots have always coexisted with judicial review typical of common law, is currently tending, on the one hand, to approximate the U.S. model of administrative adjudication and, on the other, to adapt to I/A Court H.R case law with respect to the administrative function of implementation in harmony with the fundamental right to good administration which, combined with a critical re-examination of diffuse control of the legality of administrative rules in court, would safeguard the true role of adjudicating bodies (administrative authorities or courts) in their function of protecting individual rights for the sake of more fair and equitable administrative justice.

A Comparative Approach to Administrative Adjudication

This chapter concerns administrative adjudication. The term ‘administrative adjudication’ means the entire system for individualized agency decision-making arising out of disputes between private parties and government agencies. The adjudicatory process begins with an administrative investigation of a claim or a violation and the agency’s preliminary or ‘front line’ determination, continuing through the process of an agency’s initial decision, reconsideration of that decision, and concluding with judicial review. The systems in place for resolving such disputes differ sharply around the world and are difficult to compare. This chapter highlights five models in use by various countries that should facilitate such comparisons.

Tribunals and Adjudication

This chapter concerns non-judicial review of administrative action, that is, review by bodies other than the judicial courts, including adjudication by the administration itself. It identifies in broad outline, and from a comparative perspective, the main attributes of administrative adjudication. These include: the variety and the origins of the bodies which carry out such review, the organization of internal and external administrative review, the principal structures of administrative tribunals and equivalent bodies, and their place in the justice system generally. A brief assessment of the perspectives for the study of administrative tribunals in the context of comparative administrative law is proffered by way of conclusion.

THE EXTENT OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE PRINCIPLE OF FAIR HEARING IN ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION IN NIGERIA

This paper considers and examines the extent of the applicability of the principles of fair hearing in administrative adjudication in Nigeria. The paper holds the view that administrative adjudicatory bodies are compulsorily bound by the principles of fair hearing as most of their functions affect the rights and obligations of individuals appearing before them. Bearing in mind that these principles of fair hearing (and others ancillary to them) are however not straight jacket principles, hence this paper. In achieving this purpose, the paper adopts the thematic and doctrinal methods of research. The paper adopts the analytical, critical, expository and comparative methods of presentation, with copious reference to the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria; Textbooks on Constitutional and Administrative Law and Human Rights Law; Statute books; Law Reports (Case Laws); National Assembly Gazettes, Local and International Journals as primary and secondary sources of material on the subject-matter.

Predicting Digital Geotechnical Forensic Investigation using Internet of Things (IoT)

Digital Forensic Investigations is explained as are sponse to an event that has already occurred in relation to information which is highly classified or is of prime importance to a criminal incident. Forensics Challenges in IoT Environments IoT would soon pervade all aspects of our life from managing our home temperature to thinking cars and smart management of the cities. The application of professional engineering principles and methodologies to investigating failures and incidents, usually to determine causation. Normally, it involves preparing a report of findings, which may form the basis for testimony in legal proceedings as an expert witness. A forensic engineer may serve as an engineering consultant to members of the legal profession and as an expert witness in courts of law, arbitration proceedings and administrative adjudication proceedings. Forensic engineering is a part of professional engineering practice that may cover all disciplines of engineering. It is a specialized set of skills that can include multidisciplinary training in failure analysis, simulation, safety, accelerated life testing and statistical analysis, as well as knowledge of the specific engineering field.