Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:20:52.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE DUTY TO GIVE REASONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2012

Jarrod Hepburn
Jarrod Hepburn
Affiliation:
DPhil Candidate, Balliol College, University of Oxford, [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As scholars in the Global Administrative Law project have recognized, doctrines familiar from domestic administrative systems are beginning to appear, in nascent forms, in some areas of international law. This article makes a first attempt to examine the appearance of one such doctrine, the duty to give reasons for administrative decisions, in international case-law. The existence of and rationales for this duty have been contentious in many domestic jurisdictions. The article thus considers the extent to which these debates have been replicated amongst adjudicators at the international level. The focus is on cases in the areas of WTO law, investment law and human rights law. It is found that the case law is not yet extensive, and (perhaps as a result) that no coherent picture emerges. In contrast to domestic systems, the areas examined in international law demonstrate some agreement on the desirability of the duty. However, different international adjudicators have recognized different rationales for the duty, with only limited consensus even within each area of international law studied.

Type
Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 61 , Issue 3 , July 2012 , pp. 641 - 663
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Art 296 TFEU; Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 13; Administrative Law Act 1978 (Vic) s 8.

2 Craig, P, Administrative Law (6th ednSweet & Maxwell, London 2008) 403–8Google Scholar; Elliott, M, ‘Has the Common Law Duty to Give Reasons Come of Age Yet?’ [2011] PL 56Google Scholar.

3 Kingsbury, B, Krisch, N and Stewart, R, ‘The Emergence of Global Administrative Law’ (2005) 68 LCP 36Google Scholar.

4 Zoellner, C-S, ‘Transparency: An Analysis of an Evolving Fundamental Principle in International Economic Law’ (2006) 27 MichJIntlL 579Google Scholar; Ala'i, P, ‘From the Periphery to the Center? The Evolving WTO Jurisprudence on Transparency and Good Governance’ (2008) 11 JIEL 779CrossRefGoogle Scholar; UNCTAD, Transparency (UN, New York 2004)Google Scholar, UNCTAD/ITE/IIT/2003/4.

5 S Cassese, ‘A Global Due Process of Law?’, Paper presented at NYU Hauser Colloquium on Globalisation and Its Discontents (13 September 2006) <http://www.iilj.org/courses/documents/Cassese.AGlobalDueProcess.pdf>; Delimatsis, P, ‘Due Process and “Good” Regulation Embedded in the GATS—Disciplining Regulatory Behaviour in Services through Article VI of the GATS’ (2006) 10 JIEL 13CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 See, eg, Andenas, M and Zleptnig, S, ‘Proportionality: WTO Law in Comparative Perspective’ (2007) 42 TexIntlLJ 371Google Scholar; Desmedt, A, ‘Proportionality in WTO Law’ (2001) 4 JIEL 441CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 For a preliminary study, see M de Bellis, ‘A Duty to Provide Reasons: Definitive Safeguards Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products’ in S Cassese and others, Global Administrative Law: Cases, Materials, Issues (IRPA/IILJ 2008) <http://www.iilj.org/GAL/documents/GALCasebook2008.pdf>.

8 On investment law as a system of public law, see van Harten, G, Investment Treaty Arbitration and Public Law (OUP 2007)Google Scholar; van Harten, G and Loughlin, M, ‘Investment Treaty Arbitration as a Species of Global Administrative Law’ (2006) 17 EJIL 121CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and van Harten, G, ‘The Public–Private Distinction in the International Arbitration of Individual Claims against the State’ (2007) 56 ICLQ 371CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 cf the well-known ruling of the European Court of Justice in Joined Cases C–402/05 P and C–415/05 P Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission [2008] ECR I–6351. For discussion of the issues raised by the case, see, eg, de Búrca, G, ‘The European Court of Justice and the International Legal Order after Kadi’ (2010) 51 HarvIntlLJ 1Google Scholar.

10 Kingsbury, Krisch and Stewart (n 3) 15.

11 See generally Cassese and others (n 7); sources cited at n 4, 5 and 6.

12 A fuller treatment is given by, eg, Craig (n 2) 401 and sources there cited. See also Elliott, M, Beatson, Matthews and Elliott's Administrative Law: Text and Materials (3rd edn, OUP 2005) 391–6Google Scholar; Harlow, C and Rawlings, R, Law and Administration (3rd edn, CUP 2009) 631CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Galligan, D, Due Process and Administrative Procedures (Clarendon, Oxford 1996) 429–37Google Scholar.

13 Craig (n 2) 401; Galligan (n 12) 429–37.

14 Ahmed, F and Perry, A, ‘Expertise, Deference and Giving Reasons’ [2012] PL 221Google Scholar.

15 For domestic judicial approval of the general ‘review rationale’ see, eg, R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531.

16 Craig (n 2) 401.

17 Tribe, L, American Constitutional Law (2nd edn, Foundation Press 1988) 667Google Scholar (emphasis added). See also Harlow and Rawlings (n 12) 631; Endicott, T, Administrative Law (OUP 2009) 194–5Google Scholar.

18 Galligan (n 12) 78.

19 US—Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, Report of the Appellate Body, AB-1998-4, [181].

20 ibid [183]. The Appellate Body did not make any explicit finding of violation of GATT art X:3, confining its analysis to the claimed violation of the chapeau of art XX.

21 US—Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products, Report of the Appellate Body, AB-2003-3, [278–9], [288], [298–9].

22 ibid [303].

23 United States – Safeguard Measures on Imports of Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia, WT/DS177/AB/R, 1 May 2001, Report of the Appellate Body, [105].

24 ibid [103].

25 ibid [106].

26 United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe from Korea, WT/DS202/AB/R, 15 February 2002, Report of the Appellate Body, [217].

27 Thailand – Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes and Sections of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel and H Beams from Poland, WT/DS122/R, 28 September 2000, Report of the Panel, [7.143].

28 ibid.

29 ibid [7.149].

30 ibid [7.151].

31 Thailand – Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes and Sections of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel and H Beams from Poland, WT/DS122/AB/R, 12 March 2001, Report of the Appellate Body, [106].

32 ibid [110].

33 Lemire v Ukraine, ARB/06/18 (ICSID), Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability, 14 January 2010, [309].

34 ibid [315–16].

35 ibid [328–30].

36 ibid [311].

37 ibid.

38 ibid [310].

39 Rumeli Telekom AS and Telsim Mobil Telekomikasyon Hizmetleri AS v Kazakhstan, ARB/05/16 (ICSID), Award, 29 July 2008, [615].

40 See, eg, McLachlan, C, Shore, L and Weiniger, M, International Investment Arbitration: Substantive Principles (OUP 2007) 103CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Newcombe, A and Paradell, L, Law and Practice of Investment Treaties: Standards of Treatment (Kluwer 2009) 352, 466Google Scholar.

41 Rumeli (n 39) [615].

42 ibid [617].

43 ibid [618].

44 International Thunderbird Gaming Corporation v Mexico (UNCITRAL), Award, 26 January 2006, [198].

45 Glamis Gold v USA (UNCITRAL), Award, 8 June 2009, [616].

46 ibid [764].

47 Alex Genin, Eastern Credit Limited and AS Baltoil v Estonia, ARB/99/2 (ICSID), Award, 25 June 2001, [370–1].

48 ibid [371].

49 This view is associated with Rawls' notion of pure procedural justice: see Rawls, J, A Theory of Justice (OUP 1972) 86Google Scholar.

50 Genin (n 47) [364], [372].

51 ibid [381–3].

52 S Schill, ‘Fair and Equitable Treatment, the Rule of Law, and Comparative Public Law’ in S Schill (ed), International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (OUP 2010) 171.

53 Tecnicas Medioambientales Tecmed SA v Mexico, ARB(AF)/00/2 (ICSID), Award, 29 May 2003, [123].

54 ibid [132].

55 Meltex Ltd and Mesrop Movsesyan v Armenia, 17 June 2008, App no 32283/04, [74–5].

56 ibid [81].

57 Council of Europe, Recommendation No R (2000) 23 on the Independence and Functions of Regulatory Authorities for the Broadcasting Sector, 20 December 2000.

58 Meltex (n 55) [81].

59 ibid [82] (emphasis added).

60 Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Elenkov v Bulgaria, 11 October 2007, App no 14134/02, [51].

61 Ringeisen v Austria, 16 July 1971, App no 2614/65; Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v Belgium, 23 June 1981, App no 6878/75. For further discussion, see, eg, Sales, P, ‘The Civil Limb of ECHR, Article 6’ [2005] JR 52Google Scholar; Craig (n 2) 385; and the extensive list of cases cited in P van Dijk and others (eds), Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights (4th edn, Intersentia 2006) 525–7.

62 Albert and Le Compte v Belgium, 10 February 1983, App no 7299/75; Sales (n 61) 56–7. For a recent application of this test, see Sigma Radio Television Ltd v Cyprus, 21 July 2011, App no 32181/04.

63 Bryan v UK, 22 November 1995, App no 19178/91.

64 Suominen v Finland, 1 July 2003, App no 37801/97, [34–7].

65 Hirvisaari v Finland, 27 September 2001, App no 49684/99, [30–1].

66 Elliott (n 12) 410; Craig (n 2) 403.

67 See, eg, Stefan v General Medical Council [2000] HRLR 1.

68 Fischer v Austria, 26 April 1995, App no 16922/90. See also Bryan (n 63); Le Compte (n 61); dissenting judgment of Judge Matscher in König v Germany, 28 June 1978, App no 6232/73.

69 Thunderbird (n 44) [200].

70 [1964] AC 40. See Craig (n 2) 379: ‘the use of the administrative-judicial dichotomy to determine the applicability of natural justice … has however been disapproved of explicitly in the post-Ridge case law.’

71 See, eg, Bushell v Secretary of State for Environment [1981] AC 75.

72 Boyle, A, ‘Administrative Justice, Judicial Review and the Right to a Fair Hearing under the European Convention on Human Rights’ [1984] PL 109Google Scholar.

73 AGOSI v United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, App no 9118/80, [58].

74 Indeed, the minority judges in AGOSI preferred to decide the dispute under art 6(1) rather than art 1, Protocol 1. See also Judge Martens' Separate Opinion in Fischer (n 68), who considered the requirements to be identical.

75 Bryan (n 63).

76 Art 5(2) in fact also applies to non-criminal arrests and detentions, such as administrative detention: see, eg, Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v Ukraine, 21 April 2011, App no 42310/04.

77 Fox, Campbell and Hartley v UK, 30 August 1990, App no 12244/86, [40].

78 Van der Leer v Netherlands, 21 February 1990, App no 11509/85, [28].

79 Case Concerning Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v Democratic Republic of the Congo), Judgment of 30 November 2010.

80 ibid [84].

81 Kingsbury, Krisch and Stewart (n 3) 15.