Produktdetaljer
Biographical note
Peter Cane is Distinguished Professor and Associate Dean (Research) at the ANU College of Law, Australian National University, Canberra. He has taught and researched administrative law for almost forty years, and is also well known for his research on the interface between public and private law.'An important and original contribution to administrative law and comparative government in a simple and very clear style.' Susan Rose-Ackerman, Henry R. Luce Professor of Jurisprudence, Yale Law School and Yale Department of Political Science
'Cane's greatest achievement in this book is his demonstration of extraordinary 'fluency' in the subtleties of the English, US and Australian systems of administrative law and governance. He is at his absolute best in comparative legal analysis, informed by a strong sense of the historical development of the administrative state in each country.' Peter L. Lindseth, Olimpiad S. Ioffe Professor of International and Comparative Law and Director, International Programs, School of Law, University of Connecticut
'The book - which presents an extensive and detailed study - seeks to demonstrate the core thesis by discussion of the control regimes in three systems of government: Australia, the UK, and the US General historical accounts of the systems of government in each of these jurisdictions are set out, before the book goes on to look at various aspects of the control regimes (each of the chapters can be read as a free-standing work). The closing chapter offers some methodological reflections that arose from the author's experience of the project.' Joe Tomlinson, I-CONnect
'Peter Cane's book forces one to think hard about the relationship of political structure and legal doctrine, and the lessons that can be learned in relation to comparative administrative law. It is an important issue, especially because 'this view of the cathedral' has been relatively neglected in scholarly debate. He has brought considerable scholarship to this field. It will generate further debate about his central thesis, as well as stimulating further work of this genre.' Paul Craig, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies